Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Retraining (Scotland)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour what is the success rate in placing men in employment in Scotland after undergoing a course of retraining; and what are the figures for the retraining centre at Muircockhall, near Dunfermline.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. J. B. Godber): In the past twelve months, 295 of the 342 men trained at Government training centres in Scotland were placed in the trades for which they were trained. At the Dunfermline Centre, 55 have been trained and 53 of them already placed.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the response of redundant miners, particularly in the Fife area, been any more encouraging than was shown by the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave a month ago when I last raised this matter?

Mr. Godber: The Muircockhall Training Centre in the Fife area which has a capacity of 76 now has 69 trainees, so that we are fairly well satisfied with the position there. I cannot, without notice, tell the hon. Gentleman the percentage of ex-miners in training.

Insured Workers, Wales (Migration)

Mr. McBride: asked the Minister of Labour what was the estimated net migration of insured workers from Wales in each calendar year from 1951 to 1963, inclusive.

Mr. Godber: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that figures for the migration of employees were not produced prior to the year ended June, 1952.

Mr. McBride: I thought the right hon. Gentleman would give an average figure. Has he no policy for retaining these workers in Wales? Are there no proposals for that purpose? In the absence of his giving the figures, has he considered the estimated natural increase in the population of Wales over the next 25 years of 750,000? Have the Government no plans for that? Do the Government consider direction of industry as the aim of their policy?

Mr. Godber: The average figure works out at just under 4,000 a year over the whole period. It has actually been considerably less over the last year or two.


The amount of employment in Wales has substantially improved, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. Therefore, I think that the position generally is not unfavourable at present. Of course, we must go on attracting more industries to these areas, and some of the newer industries there have been very successful.

Mr. McBride: These 4,000 people represent a considerable loss to Wales. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that depopulation is rife in some parts of the country? Would he not consider some positive measures to arrest the decline in the population represented by the emigration of 4,000 people every year?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. As I said, the average over the last two years has been only half that figure. It has, therefore, been substantially better. We must encourage the newer industries, which are already moving into the area.

Following is the information:


Estimated Net Migration of Employees from Wales


Year ended June



(thousands)


1952
…
…
…
-1


1953
…
…
…
4


1954
…
…
…
8


1955
…
…
…
5


1956
…
…
…
7


1957
…
…
…
4


1958
…
…
…
3


1959
…
…
…
2


1960
…
…
…
5


1961
…
…
…
4


1962
…
…
…
2


1963
…
…
…
2

Disabled Workers (Aberdare and Mountain Ash)

Mr. Probert: asked the Minister of Labour how many registered disabled persons are unemployed in the Ministry of Labour employment exchanges at Aberdare and Mountain Ash.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William White-law): On 15th June 1964, there were 118 registered disabled persons registered as unemployed at Aberdare Employment Exchange and 43 at Mountain Ash Employment Exchange.

Mr. Probert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no Remploy factory in the whole of my constituency, although in the adjacent constituencies

to mine there are Remploy factories? Will he convey this fact to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, who, in turn, perhaps could convey the fact to the Glamorgan County Council, which is in the course of setting up sheltered workshops?
Furthermore, is he not aware also of the possible anomaly in the existing legislation whereby firms and other undertakings with 25 or more employees have to employ 3 per cent. disabled persons? Is he aware that under the present legislation firms in returning their register of disabled persons include the whole of the areas in which the firm or undertaking works? Consequently—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—in areas of high incidence of disabled persons where there is a plethora of male labour available disabled persons have no possible chance of employment? Therefore—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—is it not time that the legislation was examined?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Remploy caters only for the severely disabled. I know that my right hon. Friend very much welcomes the initiative of the Glamorgan County Council. As to the hon. Member's suggestion about a quota, a proposal rather similar to this was considered by the Piercy Committee and rejected. I do not think it would be in the best interests of disabled people.

North-East

Mr. Popplewell: asked the Minister of Labour how many workpeople left the North-East in the years ended mid-1963 and mid-1964, respectively.

Mr. Godber: It is estimated that in the year ended mid-1963 the net migration of employees from the Northern Region was 12,000. Details for the year ended mid-1964 are not yet available. I regret that separate figures are not available for the North-East.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures continued to show the same average for a number of years before 1962? Does not his reply make nonsense of the Government's claims, put forward in this House last Thursday by the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade?

Mr. Godber: No, it does not. The figures I gave were up to the middle of 1963. There has been progress since then, but the plans for the North-East had not yet had time to affect the figures.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: How many workpeople came into the area?

Mr. Godber: The figure I gave was a net figure. During the year ending May 1963, a total of 45,000 people left the region but 33,000 entered it. There is thus considerable movement in and out.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that most people who migrate from the North-East, Scotland or Wales inevitably tend to gravitate towards; the London area, causing very serious problems in housing, transport and other social services?

Mr. Godber: That is one reason why the Government have been producing regional plans, including that for the South-East.

Mr. Popplewell: When will later figures be available? According to previous information given to me, they are usually made up to mid-April. If that is so, why are they not available in this case?

Mr. Godber: I cannot tell the precise date on which they will be available. The figures I gave were for the middle of 1963, so that they were up to the end of June.

Mr. Popplewell: asked the Minister of Labour how many firms have ceased production in the North-East since April 1963 to the latest convenient date; and how many workpeople have lost their employment in consequence.

Mr. Godber: Other than National Coal Board establishments, the closures of 47 firms in the North-East affecting 3,796 workers have been notified to my local offices during the period.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this pattern has been continuing for many years? What efforts have he and the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade been making to get some parent firms into the North-East instead of offshoots, which close down quite quickly as soon as the first breath of ill wind comes?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman has a Question down to my right hon. Friend later this week and I will therefore leave my right hon. Friend to answer that point. It is relevant to point out now, however, that over the period referred to unemployment in the North-East has dropped by 27,487—from 5·4 per cent. to 3 per cent. This shows that, in spite of closures, a great deal has been done in the area.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in the North-East welcome new firms coming in, whether they be parents or offshoots? But to encourage them to stay, might it not be worth while for a more positive policy to be adopted of selling trading estate factories to sitting tenants so that they may feel they own property that is worth while?

Mr. Godber: I will draw that suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who is pressing ahead with more advance factories in the area. These are helping to attract new firms.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of new factories have started production at the same time as others have ceased? Is he further aware that a large number of existing firms have increased production in the North-East?

Mr. Godber: I can confirm that statement. The only reason that I have not spoken more fully on this subject is that there is a Question to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade, later this week.

Sanitary Pottery Manufacturers (Letter)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Labour what reply he has sent to the letter of the Council of British Sanitary Pottery Manufacturers about the typhoid epidemic in Aberdeen and the need for increased facilities for hand washing, &c.

Mr. Whitelaw: I would refer the hon. Member to the Reply I gave on 6th July to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply sent to the Council of British Sanitary Pottery Manufacturers.

Mrs. Slater: Will that letter be sympathetic to the appeal by the sanitary


manufacturers? Does not he agree that this aspect of hygiene has become very important since the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963, was passed and that it is no use asking people to wash their hands after they have used the toilet unless provision to do so is adequate? Does the hon. Gentleman's reply to the manufacturers give some encouragement to them?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think the answer is that in itself the Act marks a very significant step forward. On the other hand, where suitable and sufficient washing facilities are otherwise provided in a position conveniently accessible to employed persons, as is required by the Act, it would seem unreasonable to require by law the provision of additional facilities which the suggestion of the sanitary manufacturers would entail.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is now no epidemic in that beautiful and healthy City of Aberdeen, which has full hygiene facilities of every kind, including hand washing?

Mr. Whitelaw: I welcome what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, and I am sure the House does, too, but he will equally realise that it hardly arises from this Question.

Sir B. Stross: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the work done at the Porton Biological Warfare Establishment on the problem of the contamination of hands? Is he aware that when hand-washing facilities are made available inside a room where there is a lavatory it is not very useful because contamination of the floors and walls, and particularly of the door, occurs every time there is flushing of the lavatory? That being the case, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the right thing to do is to have hand-washing facilities outside the room?

Mr. Whitelaw: That conflicts, to some extent, with the suggestions that have been put forward on other occasions, but I am very interested to have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's technical advice.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour if he will have consultations with the British Sanitary Pottery Manufacturers' Council concerning his regulations about the provision of wash basins in office and shop premises.

Mr. Whitelaw: Our officers consulted the Council at every stage in the preparation of these regulations, which have now been made. They would be willing to receive further representations, but the points which the Council have made have been fully considered.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Members who represent North Staffordshire are agreed that steps should be taken to implement the universal provision of wash basins adjacent to lavatories? Will he take note of that fact and perhaps find a convenient opportunity to consult the British Sanitary Pottery Manufacturers Council on the possibilities of increasing production to enable this to be carried out universally?

Mr. Whitelaw: The British Sanitary Pottery Manufacturers Council has been consulted, as I said. The scales that we have proposed were found to be acceptable to the great majority of the many organisations consulted, including employers' associations, trade unions and local authority associations. They would appear to be powerfully helped by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross), and with that support it will be seen that we have not done too badly.

Redundant Workers

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he will set up a departmental inquiry to study the difficulties of men over the age of 50 years, who find themselves unable to get worthwhile employment after being made redundant in business, professional or industrial life.

Mr. Godber: The difficulties experienced by older redundant workers are already well known. I am considering whether, in the light of the improved employment situation, there is anything further my Department can do to promote the employment of older workers.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even in the affluent society, this very human problem is far more prevalent than is probably realised? Now that we have labour shortages because of full employment in many areas, does not he think it an admirable opportunity


for many firms to take old people? Will he do everything possible to encourage them to do so?

Mr. Godber: Yes. I welcome my hon. Friend's; suggestion, and I hope that this Question and Answer will get adequate publicity. I think there is more firms can do to make use of some older workers. My local offices always try to persuade manufacturers to abandon any maximum age limit they have chosen to impose, and I am sure that this is the right course to follow.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Has my right hon. Friend kept in touch with the War Department and other Service Departments, which have done a fine job in placing ex-Service men over the age of 50?

Mr. Godber: Yes. I kept in very close touch with the War Department at one time during my career. I assure my hon. Friend that we appreciate the very good work done by the Service Departments and will profit by it in every way we can.

Payment of Wages Act, 1960

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied with the working of the Payment of Wages Act, 1960; and what evidence he has of an increase in the payment of wages by cheque or money orders, in view of the increasing incidence of theft of moneys for wages in transit.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am not aware of any difficulty in connection with the operation of this Act. Up to the present, there does not appear to have been any widespread change in methods of wage payment.

Commander Kerans: Is my hon. Friend aware that wage thefts continue to increase? Is it not time for a measure of compulsion in certain areas to enforce the Payment of Wages Act, 1960, where necessary? Can we not give greater publicity to the benefits of the Act? How much money has been stolen in the last 12 months?

Mr. Whitelaw: I naturally agree that the robberies are serious, and everyone is rightly concerned about them. Under the Act, the proposal for payment otherwise than in cash must come from the

workers. This is an important safeguard, and I would not agree that we would be justified in departing from it. I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend the robbery figures.

Unemployment, Wages and Cost of Living

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will publish in HANSARD a table of figures giving for each quarter in each calendar year since January, 1952, the percentage rise or fall in unemployment, wages, and the cost of living; and to what extent he estimates the increase in taxation and Government expenditure since 1952 has been responsible for the increase in the index of retail prices.

Mr. Godber: Changes in rates of Purchase Tax and in Customs and Excise duties are estimated to have raised the index of retail prices by about 3 per cent. since January, 1952. It is not possible to estimate the effect on the index of retail prices of changes in Government expenditure.
The other figures for which the hon. Member asks are available from material published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette and the Monthly Digest of Statistics.

Mr. Lewis: Do not the figures show that since 1952 retail prices have increased by 49 per cent., food by 56 per cent., taxes on fuel, spirits, tobacco and so on, including sweets, by 33 per cent., while the value of the £ has fallen to 13s. 4d. and our import prices and world prices have been dropping? Does the Minister subscribe to the remark made last week by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he said that the rise in food prices was due to Government policy in abolishing food subsidies, even though they faithfully promised that they would not do so?

Mr. Godber: Out of that interesting set of statistics there was one fact which the hon. Gentleman no doubt overlooked to mention. This was that during that period average earnings rose by 98 per cent. Therefore, every section of the community is better off, in spite of the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given.

Mr. K. Lewis: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that my hon. namesake opposite has probably been so involved in going on a whistle-stop tour letting people in the country see how prosperous he is under the Conservatives that he has not been able to read up the facts?

Mr. Godber: I hope that the hon. Gentleman opposite will be able to continue to prosper under a Tory Government for many years to come.

Mr. A. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Arthur Lewis, for the next Question.

Unemployment

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will publish in HANSARD a table of figures giving the percentage rise or fall in unemployment for each quarter from January, 1952, taking that date as 100.

Mr. Godber: I am arranging for a table of figures to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Knowing that I am only ever allowed to ask one supplementary question, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that during my tour, looking prosperous, I noticed people who were not so prosperous and who were unfortunately finding themselves unemployed, conveniently between elections, but able to get their jobs back just prior to elections? Can we have an assurance from the Minister that this is not just another Tory election gimmick?

Mr. Godber: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not wait until he had studied the figures, for had he done so he would probably rather not have asked that supplementary question. When he studies the figures, he will see that there was a fall consistently, apart from the beginning of 1952–53, right through the period until the end of 1957—

Mr. Lewis: Just right for the election.

Mr. Godber: The elections were in 1955 and 1959. The figures rose in 1958 and the rise went right through from 1959 until 1960 and fell thereafter. The figures have no relevance whatever to the claim made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would not the right hon. Gentleman readily agree that the rise was the outcome of Government policy? Although he now claims that unemployment is coming down, would he not admit that it is not coming down as much as Government policy put it up?

Mr. Godber: It is coming down very sharply. Over the whole period of Conservative Government full employment has been maintained in this country to a greater degree than in any other developed country.

Following is the table:


QUARTERLY AVERAGES OF THE NUMBERS UNEMPLOYED EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE RISE OR FALL COMPARED WITH THE AVERAGE NUMBER UNEMPLOYED IN THE QUARTER JANUARY TO MARCH, 1952


Period
Percentage rise (+) or fall (-)


1952—
…



April to June
…
+14·1


July to September
…
-1·5


October to December
…
- 0·1


1953—
…



January to March
…
+ 6·1


April to June
…
-15·9


July to September
…
-28·8


October to December
…
-20·9


1954—
…



January to March
…
-8·5


April to June
…
-29·8


July to September
…
-42·3


October to December
…
-35·8


1955—
…



January to March
…
-29·5


April to June
…
-42·4


July to September
…
-51·3


October to December
…
-45·5


1956—
…



January to March
…
-33·2


April to June
…
-41·0


July to September
…
-37·6


October to December
…
-32·3


1957—
…



January to March
…
- 6·6


April to June
…
-23·6


July to September
…
-35·5


October to December
…
-23·1


1958—
…



January to March
…
- 4·0


April to June
…
+ 9·6


July to September
…
+10·6


October to December
…
+31·2


1959—
…



January to March
…
+ 47·7


April to June
…
+ 18·2


July to September
…
+ 1·8


October to December
…
+ 5·4


1960—
…



January to April
…
+ 9·8


April to June
…
-13·9


July to September
…
-23·8


October to December
…
-13·3






Period
Percentage rise (+) or fall (-)


1961—




January to March
…
-3·8


April to June
…
-24·9


July to September
…
-26·9


October to December
…
-5·2


1962—




January to March
…
+ 12·6


April to June
…
+ 4·5


July to September
…
+ 10·3


October to December
…
+ 33·8


1963—




January to March
…
+98·8


April to June
…
+ 35·9


July to September
…
+ 19·2


October to December
…
+ 16·9


1964—




January to March
…
+ 15·4


April to June
…
- 8·5

Building Workers

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many building craftsmen and how many building labourers, respectively, are now out of work in the North-East.

Mr. Godber: On 15th June, 1964, 5,812 workers whose last employment was in the construction industry were registered as wholly unemployed at employment exchanges in the North-East. Of these, 887 were skilled craftsmen, 4,712 were labourers or in other occupations, 31 were women and 182 were young persons.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman find these figures very disturbing? Could it be that the pump-priming operation in the North-East has not been as satisfactory as the Government have held it out to be, or is there a shortage of bricks, or no retraining of labourers? What is the problem?

Mr. Godber: I am not and will not be satisfied until we get the figure lower, but it is little more than a half of what it was 12 months ago. The great bulk is among those classified as labourers, which is where the main difficulty now exists. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are expanding retraining facilities under the Industrial Training Act and the new boards which I am setting up in connection with that Act.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very heavy programme

of the building industry in the North-East? Is he aware that there are already shortages in some trades in the building industry in the area?

Mr. Godber: Yes, this is abundantly true. In view of that, I have every confidence that the position will continue to improve.

Mr. Shinwell: If the figure 12 months ago was double what it is now, and it is bad enough now, who was to blame then?

Mr. Godber: I was seeking not to apportion blame but to show how much better the position is now.

Juveniles, Bishop Auckland (Training)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed juveniles from the Bishop Auckland constituency are taking courses or have taken courses in the Government training centres in the North-East.

Mr. Whitelaw: Three boys from the Bishop Auckland constituency are at present on the first year engineering apprenticeship course at Tursdale. Three others completed the same course there last year.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary find these figures disturbing? What percentage of those six would be from the Barnard Castle Urban or Barnard Castle Rural District areas? Would the answer be none? Is it not a fact that there are no adequate training facilities for practically the whole of the constituency?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not find the figures disturbing, bearing in mind the purpose of the courses. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these are not the only training opportunities available in the area. In the Bishop Auckland Youth Employment Office area 64 boys obtained apprenticeships in industry in the first half of this year, and there were 189 during 1963. I think that that puts a somewhat different complexion on the problem.

Kenfig, Glamorgan

Mr. J. Morris: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the future employment position


at Kenfig, Glamorgan, having regard to the fact that over 500 men have been given notice that the Distillers Company will cease to manufacture carbide there in two years' time; and what plans he has to find employment there for these men.

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that the Distillers Company's carbide factory is to close in two years time and that the employees, including a small number of women, will be discharged. The company has said that it will make every effort to find alternative employment for its redundant workers and the full facilities of our Department will be available to all who seek our help. I am not prepared to forecast the position in two years time.

Mr. Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread anxiety in mid-Glamorgan not only about this closure but about suggestions of possible redundancies at the Steel Company of Wales? In view of this and the recent closure of the Prestcold plant and the fact that the birthrate in Port Talbot alone is running at 1,000 a year, will he consider as a matter of urgency with the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade and the Ministry of Power setting up a special inter-departmental committee to study the employment needs of the area?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade is prepared to encourage suitable new developments employing women and young persons in this area. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that Messrs. Steinberg recently announced their intention of establishing a clothing factory in the Pontypridd area to give employment to 400 workers. This is a valuable development.

Mr. Morris: Since when has his right hon. Friend been willing to give this special encouragement? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the employment offered by Messrs. Steinberg is not suitable for any of the men employed at the Distillers' factory?

Mr. Whitelaw: What matters is that my right hon. Friend is now prepared to give it. The hon. Gentleman will agree that employment prospects for men in the area are good, but that employment prospects for women and

young persons have been less favourable. On the whole there should now be reasonable prospects for these people.

Employment Exchange Records (Racial Discrimination)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will instruct employment exchanges to discontinue recording the discriminatory requests of employers who are discriminating against employees on account of their religion, race, or colour; and if he will require them to expunge such references from their present records.

Mr. Godber: My local offices have to make a note of the stipulations made by employers when notifying their vacancies to us. Otherwise they would send men for jobs they had no chance of getting. They would also be unable to carry out their instructions to try to persuade employers to withdraw discriminatory conditions.

Sir B. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is causing considerable anxiety and that it is extremely serious that a Government office should record the desires of a person who wants to discriminate against others? Does he not agree that no one should be asked his race or religion when seeking employment? What right has an official at an employment exchange to ask such a question? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, regarding it as anti-social and contrary to the interests of the country and the individual that anyone should be asked such a question?

Mr. Godber: I have given very careful thought to this matter. There is no question of discrimination by our officials. What we are always seeking to do is to bring pressure on the employers concerned to abandon any attempt at discrimination. In fact, I have recently tightened up the rules in this respect to the extent that where it is shown that continued resistance is due to prejudice, eventually and after due consideration, we are prepared to withdraw the facilities of the employment exchange.

Mr. Brockway: I recognise the dilemma here, in that a coloured person would not wish to be sent to a firm


which would send him back merely because he was coloured and it may be fairer that he knows, but instead of leaving it to his local officials to bring some pressure to bear, will the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible, issue a declaration deploring this conduct which is so contrary to our tolerance in Britain?

Mr. Godber: I deplore this conduct very strongly, and I say that publicly here at this Box. I have given great thought to this point, and recently I have introduced a new procedure whereby if local officials are unable to persuade a firm not to use this sort of discrimination they refer it to the regional office. The regional office can then use persuasion, and if that fails it refers the matter to Headquarters. Finally I or my Parliamentary Secretary take action to refuse to deal with any vacancies from that firm. This is a new procedure which I have introduced, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. John Hall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, on occasion, when employers exercise some discrimination this is often due to the attitude of their own workers rather than any desire on their part? Would not it be helpful if the local trade unions co-operated in trying to break down this discrimination?

Mr. Godber: I think that it is right that this should be a joint operation, as it were, and I shall welcome the help of the trade unions in doing just that.

Mr. Prentice: In reply to a supplementary question the Minister made a statement, which he has not made publicly before, which is of great importance. He said that if other efforts failed employers' needs would not be met through employment exchanges if they persisted in their discriminatory attitude. Will the Minister clarify that and make it clear that if, after persuasion, a firm insists on adopting a discriminatory attitude, for which there is no justification, that firm's needs will not be met through the employment exchange?

Mr. Godber: That is it. If it is without justification, we adhere rigidly to what I have just announced.

Sir B. Janner: I appreciate the Minister's good intentions, but is there any

reason at all why a person should be discriminated against on the grounds of religion or race? Will the Minister see to it that that question is not put? Why should the fact that a person is a Unitarian, or a Roman Catholic, or a Jew, be recorded on the official report so that an individual is insulted by employers' prejudices as soon as he goes there? What if the person answers "human race" in reply to the question about his race?

Mr. Godber: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not ask this question of anybody. I think that the point here is that we are wholly opposed to this discrimination. We think that it is thoroughly bad in every sense, and we do not condone it in any way.

Automation

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied with the progress being made by the departmental studies of automation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: The first Report by my Manpower Research Unit on the future pattern of employment in broad sectors of the economy will, amongst other factors, deal briefly with the effects of automation. It will be published towards the end of next month. Other studies of manpower in particular industries are expected to be published later in the year. The series of case studies of the effect of technological change on human relations which are being carried out by my Department on behalf of O.E.C.D. are also nearing completion.

Mr. Smith: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the likely effects of automation on employment over the next ten years, and does he think that some of the fears which are being expressed in some quarters about this advancement are a little over-done?

Mr. Godber: I was making a speech on this subject in Geneva only last night. It is of the greater importance that we should get this into the right perspective. The best indications that we can get are that, with the need for manpower at present, the degree of automation over the next five to ten years will be a help in meeting our requirements rather than in leading to widespread redundancy.

Offices, Shops and Railway Premises (Factory Inspectors)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that at the inception of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act in August there will be sufficient appointments made for its enforcement; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: Local and fire authorities are aware of their responsibilities for enforcement and I am confident that they will take the necessary action to meet them. A letter sent to all local authorities has expressed my concern that there should be effective enforcement of the Act and has given general guidance on this subject. The recruitment of factory inspectors is dealt with in my Answer to Question No. 18.

Mr. Craddock: I am very glad to have that assurance from the Minister. There have been some background noises about adequate arrangements not having been made, but I hope that what the Minister has said will be helpful. In view of the importance of this piece of legislation, will he be good enough to keep the matter under constant review for the time being?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment. I shall do that. Along with the hon. Gentleman, I accept the importance of this.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour what plans he has to rectify the 10–12 per cent. under-establishment of the factory department; and what steps he has taken and is taking to ensure that there are sufficient factory inspectors available to enforce the requirements of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act.

Mr. Godber: There is a continuing competition for the recruitment of factory inspectors and steps have been taken to improve both the publicity for it and liaison with the universities and technical colleges from which most of the candidates come. These measures have resulted in a net increase in the actual strength of the Inspectorate of 32 in the last 2½ years. That part of the work of enforcing the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act which falls on the Factory Inspectorate will be spread over the

whole body of some four hundred inspectors and forty-two new posts were authorised some months ago to meet the additional load.

Mr. Craddock: I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of the under-establishment of the factory department, and that is the main purpose of the Question, although of course on the more general question I hope that he feels that that is well in hand. May I ask whether, in view of the comprehensive nature of this business and the concern which he has expressed, he will be good enough to look at this from time to time to see that there is an adequate inspectorate?

Mr. Godber: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need to keep up our Factory Inspectorate. I have discussed this problem of recruitment with the Chief Inspector of Factories on a number of occasions, and I hope that we shall achieve our full establishment in the near future.

Mr. Marsh: Is it not appalling that the Government, having had four years' notice of this additional need for factory inspectors for registering offices, should still find themselves short of factory inspectors? Can he say how many we are short of at the present time? Will he consider whether, in the interim period, during the initial part of the registration of offices and shops, it will be possible to use Ministry of Labour Grade 5 officers as aides to factory inspectors purely for the registration of offices and shops? This does not seem something for which it is necessary to train factory inspectors.

Mr. Godber: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the actual shortage over the whole field of the Factory Inspectorate is 48. We recruited 41 new inspectors in 1962, 43 last year, and I hope that we shall have a better picture by the end of this year. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in relation to this Act a large part of the inspection is the responsibility of local authorities and not of my Ministry.

Institute of Labour Studies (Endowment Fund)

Mr. Prenctice: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now review the decision of Her Majesty's Government


not to make a donation to the Endowment Fund of the Institute of Labour Studies in Geneva, in view of the donations made by other countries since that decision was made; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: More than two-thirds of the income of the Institute comes from the Regular Budget of the International Labour Organisation and by this means, therefore, we already make a substantial contribution to it.

Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest report of the Institute shows that 43 other Governments now make a donation to the Endowment Fund, in addition to paying their assessed share of the regular budget? This includes not only relatively prosperous countries like France and West Germany, but many poor countries from Asia and Africa. In these circumstances, should not the British Government reconsider their attitude, bearing in mind that a number of the participants in this scheme are from the Commonwealth, including territories for which we still have a responsibility?

Mr. Godber: I have looked at this. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that these other countries have contributed. On the other hand, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union have done so. We have felt that it was right to continue to contribute through the regular budget. It is not without relevance that our share of the regular budget of the International Labour Office is higher than our share of any other specialised agency. In other words, it is between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent., whereas it has been between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. of the budget of the other United Nations agencies.

Offices and Shops (Washing Facilities)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent his regulations on washing facilities in offices and shops will ensure universal provision of wash basins adjacent to lavatories.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act requires that both sanitary conveniences and washing facilities must be provided for employees at places conveniently accessible to them. As I told the hon. Member on 6th July,

my right hon. Friend has no power to require wash basins to be placed adjacent to sanitary conveniences, but this will no doubt be the most usual arrangement.

Mr. Swingler: Bearing in mind the lessons that should have been learned from epidemics and such things, does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the time has come for the universal provision of wash basins adjacent to lavatories? Does not he agree that this ought to be done and, if he has not the power to do it, will not he take it and require it to be done? It would be quite a simple step.

Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to make two points. First, I repeat that in the provision of washing facilities the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act marks a significant step forward. Secondly, I must ask the hon. Member to consult his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross), who has considerable technical knowledge of this matter.

School-leavers, Jarrow

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Labour how many boys and girls living in the Jarrow constituency will be leaving school at the end of July; and what are their prospects of finding employment.

Mr. Whitelaw: Figures for the constituency itself are not available, but in the Jarrow Youth Employment Office area, between 1,000 and 1,400 boys and girls are expected to leave school this summer. I am hopeful that the majority of them will be able to obtain employment without undue difficulty.

Mr. Fernyhough: I appreciate that no one has done more to find employment for the boys and girls concerned than the local youth employment officer, but does the hon. Member realise that there are 150 boys and girls still without a job in Jarrow and that over the last twelve months it has averaged about 200? Since the hon. Member is hopeful that the majority will obtain employment shortly, does he think he will be more successful in the next six months than he has been in the past six months?

Mr. Whitelaw: Out of the 450 boys and girls who left school at Easter only five boys were still registered for first employment on 13th July. That shows a pretty considerable success in placing.


As to the future possibilities, some of the boys in the number that he mentioned have only just left the technical college and have registered immediately. A local engineering firm will probably be taking about 50 boys. We have had about 20 boys' vacancies notified since the figures were published, and, on the whole, the position in respect of girls is reasonably good. We are therefore justified in saying that the prospects are reasonable.

Mr. Fernyhough: How can the hon. Gentleman say that the figures are reasonably good when he compares what has obtained in my constituency over the last six months with what obtains in respect of national employment? In my constituency the rate of unemployment among boys and girls is considerably higher than the national average. We want to see our boys and girls given the same facilities as those which boys and girls in other parts of the country are enjoying.

Mr. Whitelaw: I can only say that the position in the hon. Member's area has improved. I take note of what he says, but we must not forget the improvement. The prospects are very much better than they have been for some time.

Engineering Firms (Training Levy)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Labour when the Industrial Training Board for Engineering will make a firm decision about the levy which engineering firms will have to pay for training; and when it will report on the methods, length of time and success of present apprentice schemes.

Mr. Godber: I regret that I cannot yet add anything to the answer I gave on 13th July to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden).

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the fact that we do not yet know when these facilities for training will be available, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is a crying shame that he should be unable to take advantage of all the facilities offered to him by Messrs. Baker Perkins to provide training facilities for the boys to whom I referred in my previous Question?

Mr. Godber: As the hon. Member knows, I looked carefully into the question

to see whether there was some way in which I could do this. The main thing is that we have our Industrial Training Act on the Statute Book. We are going ahead with the boards, and I hope that it will not be long before the engineering board, which I set up only last week, will be able to get going in this matter.

Mr. John Page: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which the engineering training board and the other three boards have been set up, but will he urge them to be as quick as possible in making a decision on the levy so as to remove doubt in the minds of industrialists as to their responsibilities?

Mr. Godber: I am sure that they are actively aware of this. They are keen to make progress. Indeed, several have met before being formally constituted.

Mr. Prentice: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger that some firms are still waiting to see what the levy arrangements are and are delaying the training plans which they should be making, and that this may have an adverse effect on those leaving school in the summer? Will he confirm the need for boards to get on with this as quickly as possible? Does he agree that they could back-date their levy agreement arrangements to the date when the Act came into force, thereby taking into account apprentices and others taken on from this year's school-leavers?

Mr. Godber: These are matters which the boards themselves must determine. I am sure that they will take note of the point that the hon. Member has made. As for the general point, I would hope that firms will not back-pedal on their training arrangements. It may be that other firms who were going to introduce new arrangements have waited. I have urged them in constant speeches not to do this, because any new arrangements that they make can easily be dovetailed into the system. It will help rather than hinder them if they go ahead now.

Remploy Factory, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Remploy Factory in Aberdeen is prevented from working to its full capacity as a result of shortage of staff; how many persons have been treated and


rehabilitated there during each of the last 10 years; what has been the nature and duration of the incapacity of each person; and what was the nature of the work for which each has been trained.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Remploy factory at Aberdeen has its full quota of supervisory staff, as distinct from severely disabled factory employees. The capacity in the factory cannot be filled at present because of shortage of orders for the factory's products. With regard to the second part of the Question, the purpose of Remploy factories is to provide permanent sheltered employment for severely disabled persons. It is not possible to give the medical history of the factory employees over the past 10 years.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Member realise that that is a very unsatisfactory Answer, and that the work done in the Aberdeen Remploy factory is a potential source of national wealth and productivity, quite apart from its humane aspect? To leave it under-staffed is to undermine our national wealth, to some extent. Will he reconsider his reply and see that the factory is adequately staffed to carry on its work to the fullest extent?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot accept that the Answer that I have just given is wholly unsatisfactory. The total capacity for severely disabled people at this factory is 64, and there are 49 working there at present. It is, therefore, providing a considerable contribution. We have to face the fact that, if orders are short, we cannot continue to over-employ people when their products cannot be sold. Remploy must step up its effort to sell more, as I know it is doing.

Income Policy (Wage Drift)

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received from the trade union and employers' organisations on the effect of wage drift, brought on by bonus incentive schemes, guaranteed overtime working, etc., on national wage negotiation and its possible effect upon an incomes policy.

Mr. Godber: None, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the point was made in a recent Report of the National Incomes Commission that it was not just wage increases which caused difficulty in

holding income increases across the board but that all sorts of other things—such as overtime, bonuses and so on—came into it and that both sides of industry were interested in this matter? Will my right hon. Friend draw this to the attention of the trade unions and employers and, if possible, discuss it with them?

Mr. Godber: I can assure my hon. Friend that this has been brought to the attention of both sides of industry and that it is a matter which the National Economic Development Council is itself concerned with in relation to the development of an incomes policy. These are matters of great concern with which we must press ahead on a basis of co-operation among employers, trade unions and the Government.

Mr. A. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that on about 14 occasions the Government have interfered in freely negotiated agreements, including industrial agreements, and that on almost every occasion those agreements concerned people like nurses, hospital workers and teachers, none of whom work on an incentive basis, and all of whom are employed on the lower paid basic rates? If that is the Government's policy, namely, attacking the weakest first, will the Minister do something to prevent the Government taking the same attitude towards the postmen?

Mr. Godber: That is not a very helpful comment, it is wholly inaccurate in relation to the general attitude. It is only because the Government do not attack the weakest people that I am not replying more strongly to the hon. Member's remarks.

Manufacturing Industries (Overtime)

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the average overtime per operative worked in all manufacturing industries for the week ended 31st May, 1964, compared with the average for the years 1963, 1962, and 1961.

Mr. Godber: The average number of hours overtime worked per operative in all manufacturing industries for week ended 16th May, 1964, the only date


in May for which information is available, was 2·6 hours, compared with annual averages of 23 hours, 2·2 hours and 2·3 hours for 1963, 1962 and 1961, respectively.

Mr. Lewis: Are those figures not a clear indication of the way in which the basic working hours have gone down continuously in the last few years, during which time we have been in office?

Mr. Godber: It is perfectly true that the basic working hours have gone down, and I welcome the fact that this has been done through freely negotiated agreements.

Vacancies (Scotland)

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Labour what was the ratio of wholly-unemployed persons to notified unfilled vacancies in London and the South-East and in Scotland at the latest available date and the comparable date in 1961.

Mr. Godber: One hundred to 239 for the London and South Eastern Region and 100 to 25 for Scotland in June, 1964, compared with 100 to 265 and 100 to 36 respectively in June, 1961.

Mr. Ross: This means, of course, that the position, from the point of view of both the nation and Scotland, is worse than it was; that we are right back to where we were, even worse, than 1961, with 70,000 people unemployed in Scotland—[Interruption.]—and will the Minister say what he is going to do to remedy the position? What is today's complacent story?

Mr. Godber: We do not need to have complacent stories. We rely on the facts as they emerge, and unemployment in Scotland fell by 8,500 between May and June of this year. It is now 24,000 lower than it was a year ago. These are the facts that matter to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Labour what was the ratio of wholly-unemployed boys under 18 years of age to notified unfilled vacancies for boys in Birmingham and Glasgow at the relevant dates in June, 1964.

Mr. Godber: At mid-June, for every 100 wholly unemployed boys there were 2,895 notified vacancies in Birmingham and 88 in Glasgow.

Mr. Small: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these two cities are almost equal in population? Does he realise that the differentiation and distortion in job opportunity in Birmingham as compared with Glasgow has become traditional over the years, and will he give an explanation for this?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman is surely aware of the action which the Government have been taking in the last two years to try to rectify this position, and that the position is improving in Glasgow. I was talking about this with some of the local people in Glasgow a week or two ago. It is worth pointing out that of the boys who left school at Easter in Glasgow, only 11 were still registered for first employment in June.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour what was the ratio of wholly-unemployed boys under 18 years of age to notified unfilled vacancies for boys in the Midlands and in Scotland at the relevant dates in June, 1964.

Mr. Godber: At mid-June, for every 100 wholly unemployed boys under 18 there were 2,122 unfilled vacancies in the Midlands and 111 in Scotland.

Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that this is a scandalous difference between these two areas? Does he not agree that instead of the difference narrowing it is widening between various parts of the country? Does he not appreciate that this is perhaps the best measure of all as to job opportunities in any part of the country, and would he not further agree that the Scottish people are rightly justified in feeling that their interests have been badly neglected by this Government?

Mr. Godber: That is not so. Naturally the position is different, for the reasons I gave in reply to earlier Questions, but the fact remains that the position in Scotland is improving materially at the moment. That is what matters.

London Airport (Dispute)

Mr. John Page: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to many travellers by the recent trade dispute at London Airport; and if he will make a statement on the causes and the present position.

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. A strike involving employees of B.O.A.C., B.E.A., and the Shell Oil Company took place at London Airport on 10th July. It arose from a dispute over the arrangements for the parking of employees' cars. The strike caused serious delays and in the case of British European Airways, complete stoppage of their services.
An emergency meeting of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport on 13th July, unanimously passed a resolution deploring the strike and calling upon the employees concerned to refrain from further similar action and to take up any grievances they may have through their trade unions and the machinery of the National Joint Council.
I welcome this resolution. I trust that any matters remaining in dispute will be dealt with in accordance with the resolution and that further serious dislocation of air traffic and the consequential hardship to travellers, including large numbers of holiday makers, will be avoided.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the public, including constituents of mine, who spend an hour or two travelling each day to their work are disgusted by what they consider to be selfishness, pettiness and irresponsibility on the part of these strikers, merely because for a temporary period the space provided for their car park was withdrawn so that a multistorey car park could be built in its place? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the official channels for negotiation at London Airport between the trade unions and employers are satisfactory?

Mr. Godber: The matter was unsatisfactory, and it is significant that both sides on the National Joint Council have condemned what happened. This clearly shows that the unions and employers both wish to see the position improved. If there is anything I can do to help to improve relations and communications between the parties concerned at London Airport, I shall be happy to do so.

VIETNAM

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the assembly of a force of United States B57 twin-jet bombers in the Philippines

and the training of their crews for low-level bombing raids on North Vietnam rail junctions, bridgeheads, and roads, he will now bring United States policy in Vietnam to the attention of the Security Council as likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. A. Butler): No, Sir. I do not accept these assumptions, particularly as hon. Members will have seen that, on 23rd June, President Johnson reiterated that "the United States intends no rashness and seeks no wider war."

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that quite recently, since this Question was tabled, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. McGeorge Bundy, in charge of Far Eastern affairs at the State Department, has made a public declaration saying that the United States did not exclude the idea of extending the war to North Vietnam? Will he, in the circumstances, make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government will dissociate themselves from any such policy?

Mr. Butler: I cannot alter my original reply. We have no such official intimation and there has been no such official statement. Therefore, I cannot add to v/hat I have said.

Mr. Webster: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the hon. Gentleman's desire to embarrass our American ally, on whom the Leader of the Opposition would like to rely for our nuclear defence?

EGYPT (TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT)

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the re-arming of Egypt by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, support for the Tripartite Agreement of 1950 between the United Kingdom, France, and the United States of America, remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave to Questions by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for


Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on 15th June.

Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that President Nasser, who loses no opportunity of telling the world that war with Israel is inevitable, knows what the consequences would be?

Mr. Butler: I think that the best thing would be to refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) on 14th May, 1963, in which we endorsed the American President's view of what the likely action would be in the event of trouble.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman define rather more closely and less nebulously what is meant by Government support for Tripartite Agreement? What does that actually mean? Does it mean that both the State of Israel and the United Arab Republic States are informed that in the event of any attack being made by either party on each other, those who sponsored the Tripartite Agreement would intervene in order to bring the conflict to an early end?

Mr. Butler: Since the declaration of 1950 there have been several statements made, the most important of which was made by the former Prime Minister on 14th May of last year. That has since been reaffirmed by me in various statements; namely, that we regard the United Nations as being primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace in the area and that if any threat to peace were to arise we would immediately consult the United Nations and take whatever action we feel may be required.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since my right hon. Friend regards the United Nations as primarily responsible, may I ask him whether the Security Council has taken cognisance of a situation in which the leader of one member State of the United Nations publicly proclaims on a number of occasions that war in inevitable with another member State of the United Nations? Should not Her Majesty's Government give attention to the question whether the Tripartite Declaration should either be reaffirmed

or replaced by some other instrument, or some conciliation machinery?

Mr. Butler: We regard the United Nations primarily as the best conciliation machinery. As to the Declaration of 1950, as I say, various important declarations—the most important of which I have repeated to the House—have been made since that date. Those will govern the actions of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: While we welcome the Government's determination to refer such an event, if it should happen, to the United Nations, can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the Government regard the Tripartite Declaration as still being in force; and, if so, by what act it was re-established after the Suez war?

Mr. Butler: As I said in answer to Questions on 15th June in relation to this, we still regard this as valid.

BRITISH NATIONAL EXPORT COUNCIL

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. PETER EMERY: To ask the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he will make a statement about arrangements for co-operation between industry and Government in regard to the promotion of British exports overseas.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 64.
Following on the decision to dissolve the Western Hemisphere Export Council at the end of March, the Government, in consultation with the principal national bodies concerned, have reviewed the present arrangements for fostering collectively the further expansion of the British export trade. As a result, it has been decided to establish a new organisation comprising a number of different components.
At the centre there will be a body to be known as the British National Export Council. Its tasks will be to initiate,


guide and inspire export efforts in all markets; to advise upon the formation of bodies to foster British exports in particular areas of the world; to provide a means of co-ordination between such bodies and of the country's export effort generally; and to provide the necessary finance and services for this purpose.
A number of bodies operating in particular areas of the world will be linked with the Council. Two of these, the Export Council for Europe and the Council for Middle East Trade, are already in existence and will continue to operate on their present basis. I am also in touch with the Sino-British Trade Council. Three new bodies will be formed to continue and develop the work formerly carried out in Canada, the United States and Latin America by the Western Hemisphere Export Council. Other new bodies will be formed as the need arises. The chairmen of these five bodies will be members of the British National Export Council.
The sponsors of the British National Export Council will be the Federation of British Industries, National Association of British Manufacturers, Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Trades Union Congress and the City Financial Advisory Panel on Exports. I am glad to announce that Sir William McFadzean, who has served with such distinction and success as Chairman of the Export Council for Europe, has accepted my invitation to become chairman of the new Council and to undertake its formation, in consultation with the sponsoring bodies and the Board of Trade.
I am also glad to announce that the following have accepted my invitation to form the three new bodies, work on which will begin immediately:

Canada, Mr. Peter Allen, a Deputy Chairman of I.C.I.
U.S.A., Viscount Watkinson of Woking, the Group Managing Director of Schweppes.
Latin America, Sir Berkeley Gage, formerly H.M. Ambassador in Peru.
Captain A. R. Glen, C.B.E., R.N.R., who has been a member of the Export Council for Europe from the beginning and a Deputy Chairman since September, 1962, has accepted my invitation to succeed Sir William McFadzean as Chairman

of the Council for Europe from 1st November, 1964.
I am glad that his services will continue to be available to Her Majesty's Government as Chairman of the new Council and I am confident that the Council and the linked bodies will effectively stimulate and co-ordinate the numerous activities in the field of export promotion.

Mr. Snow: Is the Secretary of State aware that in so far as this new body is certainly worthy of investigation, there will be some disappointment that there is no specific body responsible for South-East Asia? The Sino-British trading organisation, an excellent body in itself, cannot hope to compete for the vast opportunities that exist in South-East Asia, where, at this moment, we are not only confronted with great possibilities with China, but are very vulnerable indeed in other areas where trade could be promoted? Is he further aware that half of our trouble over exports is the possibility that reports about exports do not reach many hundreds of potential exporters because the channelling back of potentials does not reach many small potential manufacturers?

Mr. Heath: I said in my statement that other bodies can be formed as required. I should expect the Council to advise me about the formation of other bodies which it considered necessary to deal with exports in other parts of the world.

Mr. Emery: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Exports may not worry the other side, but they do this.
Will my right hon. Friend allow this Council to make financial recommendations to Her Majesty's Government in any way it considers appropriate for the promotion of exports? Further, will he see that the Council has the necessary powers—and, indeed, the scope—to ensure that all the new problems that arise in regard to exports can be dealt with because, however efficient an organisation may be, new problems are perpetually cropping up?

Mr. Heath: Financial arrangements are a matter jointly for Government and industry. The Government will make grants in aid on the basis that industry


provides a similar amount. The British National Export Council is there to make recommendations on all matters, either new or existing, that may come before it.

Mr. Jay: As, I think, the House had no particular warning that this statement was to be made today, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can make one or two points clear. Is the whole of the Commonwealth covered by this new organisation? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Canada and the United States, and one or two areas, but can he make clear the geographical scope?

Mr. Heath: This body can cover the whole world. At present, it is dealing with the five particular councils I have mentioned, and it may get into touch with other existing bodies. That, I am leaving to the central Council to deal with itself, and to advise me.
As to other parts of the Commonwealth, as I explained during our debate on Commonwealth trade, there are particular organisations of the Commonwealth chambers of commerce that deal with particular areas, and I now leave it to the chairmen of the new bodies to get into contact with them and advise us on what action to take.

Mr. Turton: Arising out of that reply, will this most valuable new organisation be given a directive to examine the possibility of an export council for the sterling Commonwealth area, so that, with the Canadian Export Council, the Commonwealth may be covered?

Mr. Heath: I want this Council to advise me about bodies to be formed for other parts of the world, and the arrangements to be made with bodies that already cover the Commonwealth. The one that I have set up with a new chairman is to deal with Canada. Part of the advantage of the organisation is that it will be more flexible than the former body and will be able to focus on particular markets of the world as required. I therefore hope that these bodies will advise me about any further arrangements that should be made about Commonwealth countries or Commonwealth areas. But I would not like to give them a directive that they must deal with our whole sterling Commonwealth as one block.

Mr. Grimond: Am I right in assuming from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government are willing to match by grant in aid any expenditure incurred by industry? If so, is there any limit, or has any estimate been made of the cost?

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that we will match the amount paid by industry. There is no specific limit at the moment, but this, naturally, will be settled by the chairman of the Council in consultation with myself and the Board of Trade.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the Western Hemisphere Exports Council, originally the Dollar Exports Board, was set up on Government initiative, and I think that I am right in saying that the Western European one was also set up on Government initiative, may I ask why, after all these years, there has been no Government initiative to set up a similar one for exports to the Commonwealth with which our trade has declined so gravely in the last four or five years?
Will the right hon. Gentleman set one up without waiting passively for a recommendation from this body and express the desire of the whole House that there should be urgently set up a body dealing with Commonwealth trade comparable to those dealing with the areas which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned?

Mr. Heath: The central Council is being set up on Government initiative, and it is this body which will co-ordinate all the activities and will be invaluable in advising the Government about setting up individual bodies for the rest of the world. Already a body for Canada is being set up, as I have announced. As for the other areas, there are other bodies, working through chambers of commerce, already active at the moment. The British National Export Council will advise about these and whether there should be closer links and what arrangements they want. In much of the Commonwealth the Government are already concentrating great efforts.

Mr. Wilson: Where?

Mr. Heath: This year, in Australia—if the right hon. Gentleman does not know of the efforts already being made. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman


thinking that he can just talk about additional efforts in the Commonwealth without recognising what is already being done.

Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that a slightly more forthcoming approach to Commonwealth trade would have been somewhat more gratifying? While we on this side of the House, and probably hon. Members on both sides, welcome the success of the Export Council for Europe, one would have thought that an approach similar to this could well have been made in the case of the Commonwealth. Is there any particular reason why more positive directive or suggestion could not have been made to this new body perhaps in association with a new, successfully established Commonwealth Secretariat?

Mr. Heath: We are already dealing with Canada in this particular organisation. The reason why separate bodies have not been set up for Commonwealth countries is that work is already being done over large areas of the Commonwealth by Commonwealth chambers of commerce. It now remains for this Council to advise on this aspect.

Mr. H. Wilson: This, Mr. Speaker, is daft. Surely, in 1949, there were already very powerful chambers of commerce which were handling trade between Britain and North America, but we needed the Dollar Exports Board. In view of the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, trade with the Commonwealth has fallen, on the Treasury's own figures, from 36 per cent. of our total in 1959 to 30 per cent. today, why have the Government not specifically set up an export organisation for the Commonwealth instead of leaving it to the chambers of commerce?

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman himself, when he set up the Export Council, did nothing about setting up an export council for the Commonwealth. What I have done is to set up a central organisation which will deal with the three new bodies to take the place of the Western Hemisphere Export Council, including Canada, and to deal with the Export Council for Europe and the Council for Middle East Trade, which are already in operation, and with the central Council, which has on it representatives

of sponsoring bodies, including the T.U.C. and Government Departments. This organisation will also carry matters a stage further and advise about any additional machinery wanted for the Commonwealth. This is much the most satisfactory way of going about it in order to enlist the wholehearted support of industry and the T.U.C.

Mr. G. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman's slip is showing.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the chairman of the councils be paid or will they be volunteers?

Mr. Heath: The chairmen of all these bodies and the members carry out their work as a voluntary public service.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Commonwealth trade has increased since 1951 by £3,000 million, but that this country has been able to secure only £100 million of that? Is not this a deplorable development? Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that our share of trade with Commonwealth countries has been reduced from 25 per cent. to 19 per cent. and that this trade with the Commonwealth has been lost to Germany, Japan and France? Is not it time that we had something more effective to build up this trade?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that since we were alarmed by his speech last Friday, showing the current trend in British exports, his statement today, coming as it does almost in the last week of a dying Parliament, has all the signs of window-dressing just before an election? Why was the statement not made three years, or even three months, ago?

Mr. Heath: This statement was made because of a change in the position of the Western Hemisphere Export Council; and as a result of the resignation of Lord Rootes, to whom we have already paid tribute, it was necessary to reorganise the machinery for dealing with North and South America. Therefore, this gave an opportunity for the creation of a British National Export Council and linking other bodies with it and forming it from the chairmen and representatives of those bodies.
As for Commonwealth trade, it is because of this position that we have


been making efforts in Canada which have resulted in a change in the Canadian Custom procedure for whisky, which is beneficial to us, and the undertaking of the Canadian Minister of Finance, on behalf of his Government, to deal with the question of valuation in Canada—of utmost importance to us. Hence, also, the reason why we have been concentrating on Australia as a market.
The hon. Member will also recall the impact on Commonwealth trade of the extent of aid devoted by other members of the Commonwealth which is tied aid and, therefore, affects our freedom of trade with the Commonwealth itself. These are obstacles with which we have to battle. It is necessary that British businessmen should do their utmost and we encourage them to do it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this now without a Question before the House.

B.O.A.C. (VC10 AIRCRAFT)

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): With permission, I will make a statement about the size and composition of the B.O.A.C. fleet of aircraft.
As the House knows, B.O.A.C. has ordered 30 Super VC10s. These aircraft with the 12 Standard VC10s now being delivered and the 20 Boeing 707s now in service would make a total fleet of 62.
When Sir Giles Guthrie assumed the chairmanship of B.O.A.C. on 1st January, this year, I sent him a directive which was published in HANSARD on 5th February. In this I asked Sir Giles to prepare a plan for putting the Corporation on its feet financially. This plan is intended to cover all aspects of B.O.A.C.'s operations, and Sir Giles has not yet completed his work on it. He has, however, already made a detailed study of the Corporation's route pattern. He does not propose to make many reductions in this and, indeed, has same plans for extension. He has, however, concluded that by higher utilisation of aircraft he can maintain B.O.A.C.'s services in 1967 with 23 less passenger aircraft than the Corporation had previously planned. In other words, he judges that he will need

a fleet of about 39 passenger aircraft in 1967 instead of 62.
As the House knows, the issue which now has to be decided is to find the best solution to the problem which has arisen as a result of B.O.A.C. having ordered more aircraft than it now appears will be needed. Sir Giles and the other members of the Corporation have reached the conclusion that the right course for B.O.A.C. to follow would be to cancel the order for 30 Super VC10s. This would involve heavy cancellation charges. It would reduce the fleet to 32 aircraft. To meet the full requirements B.O.A.C. would then wish to buy six new Boeings. The fleet would then consist of 26 Boeing 707s and 12 Standard VC10s.
The main consideration that has led B.O.A.C. to this conclusion is the following. The 20 Boeing 707s now held by the Corporation have a number of years of life before them and have already been very largely amortised in the Corporation's accounts. The cost of amortising new Super VC10s would be much greater than the further depreciation of the Boeing 707s now in service. In the opinion of B.O.A.C., the continued use of the Boeing 707s would be more profitable than their replacement by Super VC10s, and it would be more economical, in their view, to buy new Boeing 707s rather than to take Super VC10s.
Sir Giles has also told us that B.O.A.C. will need about eight further aircraft after 1968. If B.O.A.C. were now to buy six new Boeing 707s, this further requirement would almost certainly have to be met by further purchases of Boeing 707s. Implementation of this proposal would thus mean the cancellation of 30 Super VC10s and the purchase of 14 new Boeing 707s. The fleet would then consist of 34 Boeing 707s and 12 Standard VC10s.
I wish to stress the point that the issue is not simply what aircraft B.O.A.C. should now order to meet its estimated requirements, but whether it should cancel the order already given and, at the same time, embark on a policy of replacing some of the cancelled Super VC10s with new Boeing 707s. While I appreciate the force of the considerations advanced by Sir Giles Guthrie, I do not think that it would be right to allow B.O.A.C. to cancel the order given by it


for Super VC10s with a view to buying more Boeing 707s.
The trials of the Super VC10 show that this will be an aircraft of very high performance and quality. Its quietness, slower landing speed and relatively short take off and landing capacity should give it great appeal both to passengers and operators. The result of following B.O.A.C.'s commercial proposals would be to inflict extensive injury on the British aircraft industry and those who work in it. It would also do serious damage to the prospects of a fine and promising aircraft.
I have had several talks about this with Sir Giles Guthrie, and in view of all these considerations, including the existence of the contracts, he has agreed that B.O.A.C. will take 17 of the 30 Super VC10s. This means that he will take seven to meet his estimated requirements up to 1967 and subsequently a further 10. As the House will appreciate, this is two more than he now thinks will be required after 1968, and B.O.A.C., if its present forecast of future traffic requirements does not, in fact, prove to be an underestimate, may decide when it gets the additional two VC10s to dispose of two of the Boeing 707s.
Of the balance of 13 Super VC10s, the Royal Air Force will take three in addition to the 11 Standard VC10s now on order by the Air Force. These three aircraft will be needed to maintain our strategic airlift capacity as existing transport aircraft cease to be operational. Work will, therefore, continue as planned on 20 of the 30 Super VC10s ordered by B.O.A.C.
I come now to the balance of 10 aircraft on order by B.O.A.C. I have found this a very intractable problem. B.O.A.C. is, in my view, quite rightly not prepared at this time to say how many more or, indeed, what aircraft it may need at the end of the decade in addition to the 47 for which it now has a requirement.
In April, 1963, the then Chairman of B.O.A.C. asked the British Aircraft Corporation to suspend work on 10 of the Super VC10s ordered by B.O.A.C. This B.A.C. agreed to do. The work on these aircraft is not very far advanced, and a final decision with regard to them need not now be taken.

Work on these aircraft will remain in suspense for the time being. This is, of course, without prejudice to the contractual position.
B.O.A.C.'s fleet as now planned will consist of 17 Super VC10s, 12 Standard VC10s—in all, 29 VC10s—and 18 to 20 Boeing 707s. It could well be that in the light of operating experience, B.O.A.C. may wish to replace the Boeing 707s as they age with Super VC10s. It may be that some new features can with advantage be incorporated in the Super VC10s, and it may be that B.O.A.C.'s requirements after 1968 will exceed present forecasts. It does not, therefore, appear to be sensible now to decide to cancel the order for these 10. As I have said, work on them will remain in suspense for the time being. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]
I have assured Sir Giles Guthrie that it is the Government's intention to take whatever action may be necessary to reorganise the Corporation's capital and financial structure so as to enable it [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members make so much noise they will prevent us making further progress.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this statement seems to comprise mostly argumentation, conjecture and postponement of decision, may I ask under what rule it is in order that the Minister is making it? Surely this is the very reverse of a statement. He is telling us what he is not going to do, not what he is going to do. Is this not an abuse of the procedure of this House? May I inquire whether you ask for these statements to be submitted to you in detail before they are made?

Mr. Speaker: This is covered by Rulings by my predecessors which I have had occasion to look up lately. There has been correspondence with a right hon. Gentleman. The Minister has a right to make a statement if he thinks fit, and I cannot stop him if I am given notice about it. How early I get notice of its terms is apparently a matter of hazard.

Mr. Amery: I think that what I am saying will be helpful to the House for the debate on Wednesday.
As I was saying, I have assured Sir Giles Guthrie that it is the Government's intention to take whatever action may be necessary to reorganise the Corporation's capital and financial structure so as to enable it to operate as a fully commercial undertaking with the fleet of aircraft now planned and with those which may be ultimately selected. The detailed implementation of this assurance will be worked out between my Department, the Treasury and the Corporation in the context of any other steps necessary to put B.O.A.C. on its feet financially.
Sir Giles Guthrie, on behalf of B.O.A.C., Sir Charles Dunphie, on behalf of Vickers, and Sir George Edwards, on behalf of the British Aircraft Corporation, have assured me of their full co-operation in the discussions which must necessarily take place in view of the decisions I have announced. I would like to express my thanks to them for their help in seeking to find the best solution of the difficulties which have arisen as a result of B.O.A.C.'s ordering more aircraft than are now required.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be very grateful to him for confirming all the Press statements which we have been reading during so many weeks? Indeed, at times it sounded almost like tedious repetition. Is he aware that despite what he said, we on this side of the House do not accept that B.O.A.C. freely ordered too many aircraft? It would have been as well if Viscount Watkinson's name had been mentioned in this statement instead of in the one which has just been made by the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade.
As the right hon. Gentleman has instructed B.O.A.C. to function as a commercial airline, may we ask who now pays for the VC10s which are surplus to the requirements as announced by Sir Giles Guthrie? Surely if we are to expand the fleet when the routes are contracting we shall be back where we were, regulating our routes to our aircraft.
In his statement the right hon. Gentleman said that he has assured Sir Giles that it is the Government's intention to take whatever action may be necessary

to reorganise the Corporation's capital and financial structure and to help get it on its feet financially. Does this include the cancellation of the £80 million deficit on which B.O.A.C. is condemned to pay £4 million interest a year? Does it also include raising the ban on trooping contracts, which also is costing B.O.A.C. money?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that instead of this extremely tortuous recommendation, it would have been far better had the Government agreed themselves to purchase the 30 planes and then to charter them out as needed until the routes structure expands, until the Boeings can be sold and until the R.A.F. is ready to take more VC10? We believe that the latter course would have been a far better way than merely deferring 10 planes for the consideration of the next Government and the House.
What the right hon. Gentleman has done is, we suggest, a rather cowardly way of getting rid of a very sticky political issue and palming it on to those who will come afterwards.

Mr. Amery: The question of the accumulated deficit will, of course, be dealt with when we make proposals to the House for the reorganisation of the capital structure.

Mr. Lee: When?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member suggested that it was a cowardly thing to leave the decision until the next Parliament. I do not think that there is anything cowardly in that. We shall no doubt have to deal with the problem. I can imagine nothing which could have been more damaging to the prospects of the VC10 than if we had had to take it over on Government account and to charter it out here, there and everywhere.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the almost irresponsible over-ordering of aircraft by B.O.A.C., will my right hon. Friend say whether his directive to the new Chairman on 1st January was intended to give him authority to turn down much valued capital equipment ordered by his predecessors? May we be told that? Will he tell the House what firm inquiries there are for the VC10 from overseas and for home orders? Will he bring B.O.A.C. and the new Chairman of Vickers together so that they may


work out the basic economic costs, get on with this very fine aeroplane, and get it into operation?

Mr. Amery: In my directive to Sir Giles Guthrie I asked him to approach the problem from a purely commercial standpoint, and I make no complaint of the proposals which he has put forward. But the Government have to have regard to wider issues than purely commercial ones.
As to the interest shown in the VC10 by other airlines, there are a number of foreign inquiries at present, and I understand that British Eagle Airways has also been making inquiries, particularly with regard to the possibility of using the VC10 on the South American routes. These are still inquiries and I am not in a position to make any announcement about them. Last night, Sir Charles Dunphie, of Vickers, Sir George Edwards, of B.A.C., Sir Giles Guthrie and I all met, and there have been discussions between us as to the implementation of the decisions which I have announced.

Mr. Cronin: Is it not an extraordinary situation that the Chairman of B.O.A.C., only two days ago, issued a statement which is diametrically opposed to the Minister's decision this afternoon? Has this situation not done great harm to the British aircraft industry, and is it not the case that when he took office two years ago the Minister was fully aware that VC10s had been ordered in excess? Why did he not take action much earlier? Finally, is this not another example of vaccilating policy, procrastination and muddle on the part of the Government?

Mr. Amery: I make no complaints about the Chairman of B.O.A.C. making a statement and putting his position forward. He must be free to do this. It would be quite wrong to attempt to inhibit him from decisions of this kind.
I was asked what the situation was two years ago. It is true that at one time Sir Matthew Slattery proposed the cancellation of 13 aircraft, and it was partly the result of my intervention in this matter that no action was taken and that, instead, B.A.C. agreed to suspend work on these aircraft, but without any prejudice to the contractual position, so that the whole question might

be studied at leisure. It is still being studied, and I think that it would have been quite premature to have made any cancellation two years ago. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to suggest that I was wrong in halting action on that occasion.

Sir W. Robson Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will bring very limited relief to my constituents and all the workers in the Weybridge factory? Is he aware that informed public opinion in this country takes the attitude that we should not cancel VC10s, but rather the reverse—that we should sell the Boeings which are under the control of B.O.A.C? Would he, between now and the debate on Wednesday, make it clearer what has been the real outcome of an agreement between B.A.C, B.O.A.C. and himself, because this is the first time to my knowledge that there has been any confrontation of these parties in this most vital national matter?

Mr. Amery: As I said, no cancellation is proposed. But it seems to me that it would be wrong to ask B.O.A.C. to take aircraft surplus to its requirements or to sell off very profitable Boeings. It seems to me that the important thing, without interrupting the contract, is to give time for the Corporation to see what its longer-term requirements will be.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman "come clean" and admit that the intractable problem of these 10 extra VC10s is one of the Government's own creation? Does he recognise that serious damage has already been done to a fine and promising airliner by the delay in making this statement? Will he answer these questions?
First, does the part of his statement which refers to B.O.A.C's estimated requirements after 1967 mean that the orders for this aircraft will be phased out and that the deliveries will not take place as previously scheduled?
Secondly, what exactly do these reductions in the route structure of B.O.A.C. consist of? What effect will they have on the Corporation's future fleet requirements?
Thirdly, on the high utilisation which Sir Giles Guthrie expects to get out of his fleet, will the right hon. Gentleman


give the House the comparative figures of the present utilisation and that which Sir Giles expects?
Finally, in view of the great importance of these calculations to B.O.A.C. and to the aircraft industry, will the right hon. Gentleman publish a White Paper setting out all the calculations involved?

Mr. Amery: The phasing of the orders is a matter which B.O.A.C. and B.A.C. will be discussing together. I am not in a position at this point to say exactly how the phasing will take place. I will do my best to deal with the other points which the hon. Gentleman raised in Wednesday's debate. It may be that, after the hon. Gentleman has heard what I have to say on Wednesday, he will not any longer wish to press for a White Paper.

Sir J. Eden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome the statement that he has made, particularly as it appears from all reports that the VC10 is an extremely popular aircraft with passengers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome the fact that no cancellation has taken place, because there is apparently plenty of stretch in the aircraft and the prospect of a Mark II version coming along is very realistic indeed?
Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that we also welcome the commercial approach of the new Chairman of B.O.A.C., recognising that it has always been the case that the Minister can, should he wish to do so for reasons of greater national interest, make a directive or make some issue quite plain, as he is doing now?
Is it not quite clear from the ribaldry of the Labour Party that it is more concerned with the party politics to be gained from this than it is with the future of the British aircraft industry, for which the Labour Party has only one solution—

Mr. Speaker: That question does not arise out of this statement.

Sir J. Eden: Mr. Speaker, may I complete the sentence? The Labour Party has only one solution for the British aircraft industry, which is nationalisation, which is the basis of the present trouble.

Mr. Amery: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in saying that we welcome the commercial approach of the new Chairman. What I have always sought is that the Chairman of B.O.A.C. should give us his judgment of what is the commercial solution and that he should not seek to determine what the national interest is.
It is important that the Corporation's management should proceed on commercial lines and that the Government should determine where the national interest lies. Many of the troubles with the Corporation have arisen from the fact that the Chairman sometimes thought that he was judging where the national interest lay.
I confirm that the VC10 is an extremely popular aeroplane with both passengers and pilots. I believe that it is capable of very substantial stretch both in passenger accommodation and in engine power.
I would also add, since I have been given the opportunity, that the utilisation rate of the Standard VC10 now in service with B.O.A.C. has been sensationally high, I believe something like eight out of 24 hours, which, in a new aeroplane, is very unusual.

Mr. G. Brown: Would the Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us the cost in terms of public money of the decisions which the Minister has announced this afternoon?

Mr. Amery: The cost of the reorganisation of the capital structure of B.O.A.C., which will have to take account of the problem of the accumulated deficit, is something which I cannot define until we bring clear proposals before the House on this subject.
The decisions which I have announced this afternoon involve no increase in cost, in the sense that the money for the purchase of VC10s has already been approved by the House in the 1963 Act, making loan money available for the purchase of aircraft by B.O.A.C.

Mr. Brown: That is not expenditure.

Mr. Amery: There will be a provision with regard to the three aircraft for Strategic Command. There will be ultimately an element to be included in the


capital reconstruction of B.O.A.C. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] We cannot define this until the whole proposal is brought forward.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must choose some other time to revert to this subject.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (TRANSFER)

Mr. Speaker: I regret that I must now take up some time. I apologise to the House in advance for the length of what I have to say. I undertook to tell the House why I felt bound to rule out of order a Question to a Minister about the transfer of a Question.
The practice of transferring Questions has been long established, but it has never been the practice to allow Questions relating to the transfer of an individual Question. It is significant that, although the practice of transferring Questions has, as the House knows well, been the subject of protest by hon. Members from time to time, under Governments of varying political complexion, no instance can be found of such a Question being allowed.
The principle underlying our practice is that Ministers are jointly responsible to the House and the determination of which Minister should be responsible for answering any particular Question is a matter of internal arrangement between Ministers. It forms no part of the public administration to which in the words of Erkine May Questions to Ministers may be directed.
The House may think that it would be inadvisable to change our practice. If Questions about an individual transfer were allowed, each transfer would be liable to be followed by a question asking why the Question had been transferred. Our time for questioning Ministers upon their public administration is already hard pressed and the House might not wish to have it in part consumed by the discussion of purely procedural points.
I turn to the proposed Question of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), which did not relate to the transfer of an individual Question. The hon. Member sought to ask merely

for statistics relating to Questions transferred.
After reflection, I came to the conclusion that the Question could not be allowed. If the practice of disallowing Questions about an individual transfer rests upon the principle to which I have referred, it is difficult to see how, without inconsistency, the same principle does not rule out a Question relating to multiple transfers.
But, in any event, there was another obstacle to the proposed Question. Our practice does not allow Questions which require information set out in accessible documents. For example, one of my predecessors declared that a question seeking information which an hon. Member could get from HANSARD was out of order. The reference is to Parliamentary Debates (1901), Vol. 90, c. 207.
The transfer of Questions is a matter of record, since they are all noted upon the Notice Paper. The calculation of them may take time, but that does not affect the principle. We have done what we could to assist the hon. Member by the services of the Library and the Table Office. I understand that the hon. Member has now, in fact, been given all the information for which he sought to ask in his original Question to the Prime Minister.
It is not the intention that this Ruling should extend to the proposition that the Prime Minister may not be questioned about his general practice in answering Parliamentary Questions. Such a Question was allowed in November, 1963, and another to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, West last Thursday.
There remains the problem raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on that day. I should like to express my gratitude to her for allowing me, in the interests of the time of the House on that occasion, to defer my Ruling until today.
I find that Questions regarding letters or representations to one Minister have frequently been transferred to another Minister. My predecessors have always taken the view that they had no power to intervene if Ministers considered that the subject matter of the correspondence made it more appropriate to be answered by the Minister to whom it was transferred.
The earliest Ruling in our records is from 1933, on 20th November, when a Question about a report from the British Medical Association which had been sent to the Prime Minister was transferred to another Minister. Similar Rulings were given in 1938, in regard to a Question about a resolution sent direct to the Prime Minister from a national organisation, and, again, in 1939, on 11th May, in relation to a Question by the then hon. Member, now the right hon. Member, for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
The transfer of Questions about letters to Ministers has, therefore, been well established for over 30 years. In these circumstances, it would not be within my power to exercise control, even if I considered that I should be justified in so doing.
With regard to the hon. Lady's point that the sense of the Question had been altered as a result of the transfer, this, again, has been ruled on by my predecessors. On 19th June, 1946, a Member complained that a Question dealing with repeated requests made to one Department was entirely altered in meaning when transferred to another Department. A similar point of order was raised in July, 1951. In both of these cases, my predecessors said that they had no powers in the matter.
Where transfers have been made that might appear to alter the sense of a Question, it has been the practice of the Clerks, for some Sessions now, to make drafting alterations so as to preserve the original sense of the Question, but they only so act if their attention is drawn to the correction required, and their attention was not so drawn in this case. Had the hon. Lady wished, she could have asked to have her Question altered "the Prime Minister" in terms. Further than this, I cannot help her.
so as to refer to a letter addressed to

Mr. Grimond: I am sure that the whole House will be grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you one question in connection with it?
You have said that Questions are a joint responsibility of the Government and that it is a matter for the Government which Minister replies. In that case, would it be in order to put down

a Question addressed simply to the Government, without specifying any Minister, leaving it to the Government to decide who should reply to it?

Mr. Speaker: I shall look at the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I do not propose to rule upon it "off the cuff". I do not think that it has ever been our practice.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not your statement, for which we are grateful, Mr. Speaker, mean, in effect, that the Prime Minister can transfer every Question addressed to him on the ground that he transfers his responsibility to his colleagues?
If that be the position, and I understand that it is, following your statement, and since the point is whether we are allowed to put a Question to the Prime Minister on a subject of this kind, would it be permissible, in view of what has been said and of the position now stated to the House, to ask the Prime Minister by a Question whether in future he will determine how he will answer Questions addressed to him?
Unless that is done, we might as well abandon that part of the Standing Order which provides that, at 3.15 p.m. on two days a week, the Prime Minister will answer Questions.

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman reads my statement, he will find that I have fairly covered that. I shall look at the particular Question when it is tabled, but I think that it goes to the general practice of the Prime Minister in answering Questions which, I pointed out, was not covered by this Ruling.

Mr. Swingler: I thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I understand from it that Questions about transfers are ordinarily out of order because one cannot ask a Minister about a transfer when he has shed responsibility for a Question by transferring it. But I do not see the application to my Question which you ruled out of order last week. That was a Question to the Prime Minister about a Question which he had previously transferred and which he subsequently reaccepted, by so doing reaccepting responsibility for the Question and its subject matter. It seems to me—there may be no precedent about


this—that in such a case, where a Minister re-accepts responsibility for a Question which he had originally transferred, it ought to be in order to ask him about his original action which was within his administrative responsibility.
The Minister has, by his second action, accepted responsibility for the matter and, in that case, I should have thought that it came within the Ruling in Erskine May that one may ask a Minister Questions about those things which come within his administrative responsibility. His re-acceptance of a Question in the House is, surely, a matter which is within his administrative responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: I entirely appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest and the courteous way in which he raises with me again now what he wanted to ask the other day. If he will look at the Ruling which I have given, he will see that the principle upon which we go would cover the circumstances, a transfer away and a transfer back being the same as a single transfer. If he will look at my reasons—the House may regard them as right or wrong—he will, I think, find that they govern the point which he has raised.

Mrs. Castle: May I support the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), that we should be given a definition of what lies within the administrative responsibility of the Prime Minister, so that we may be guided in putting Questions to him? Do I understand from your reply to my right hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker, that you will give us a Ruling on that point?

Mr. Speaker: No. I have ruled—if the hon. Lady reads what I have said, I think that she will see the point—that one may ask the Prime Minister about his general practice in the answering of Questions, and this is so because it is akin to the allocation of responsibility between the Prime Minister, on the one hand, and Departments, on the other. That is a different point. I think that the hon. Lady will find that it is clear enough from the Ruling.

Mr. W. Hamilton: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your statement, and raise two or three points with you?
The first arises in regard to Questions information on which is accessible in certain documents to which you referred. Is it not a fact that very many Questions are asked in the House about which information is available in the Monthly Digest of Statistics and other documents? It is true that the information which I eventually got from the Table Office and the Library together could have been got out by myself by going through every Order Paper for the last six months. But if all Questions of this kind are to be ruled out on the ground that the information is available, no matter how much work is involved, the Order Paper will be very considerably curtailed, since many of us put Questions down to which we already know the answers.
Would you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that your statement today, as I understand it, very much weakens the position of the ordinary back bencher vis-à-vis any Minister? So far as I can gather, any Minister can transfer any Question to any other Minister whatever without any redress for, or question by, the hon. Member originally posing the Question. It is quite clear from your statement that the Prime Minister will go on transferring Questions, completely unquestioned and unchallenged, as has been done during the past three or four months.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the precedents, he will find that they are quite firm about it. As regards Questions, an hon. Member may not ask for information which is all available in the publicly accessible documents; they are available to him, he knows them, they are in HANSARD, and so on.
With regard to the second point, I am not strengthening the position of Ministers against back benchers or of back benchers against Ministers. I am merely trying to discover what the practice is, and on what it is based, and to follow it. As far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman can do what he likes to Ministers, apart from Questions. The question is what he can rightly put in a Question. The practice for a very long time now has been that one may not ask questions about transfers of individual Questions.

Mr. W. Yates: It would appear from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as all Questions are the responsibility of the Government, that it would


be the best advice to back benchers to direct all their Questions to the Prime Minister, and he would then decide which Questions should be transferred to the various Ministers as he felt inclined. I am just looking at this proposition, because it might be of advantage to back benchers and it might be of advantage to our procedure if such were the practice.
But I would suggest, following your Ruling, Sir, that a step further should be considered by the House: if a Question is in order and is directed to a Minister, it first having been submitted to the Prime Minister, then that Minister must answer and it cannot be transferred a second time. One transfer we could all endure, but a second transfer would seem to put power far too much into the hands of the Executive, and that is what we are here to resist.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion will have been heard, but I cannot, on this Ruling, undertake to advance improvements. That is for a suitable body to consider.

Mr. Woodburn: Since one of the purposes of Questions is to bring very important matters and the Government's actions and inactions before the public, and since these would not necessarily be revealed by the fact that the information exists in some deep recesses of documents, would it not be a great disadvantage to the purpose of the hon. Member tabling the Question, which is one of the most important elements in democracy, if there were too strict a reading of this Ruling

and if it were interpreted as meaning that Questions could not be asked in public about anything which was available in documents?

Mr. Speaker: I should not wish it to be any stricter that the practice imposes upon me. I did not invent it.

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry to return to my earlier point, Mr. Speaker, but I listened very carefully to your statement and could not find anything in it dealing with my point. At the moment, the Prime Minister's behaviour is purely arbitrary. For example, he transferred my Question about a letter from Mr. Melling, but considered my Question about about a resolution sent to him by the Methodist Church Conference. This means that hon. Members are totally in the dark about what the Prime Minister considers comes within his responsibility.
Therefore, to help us in the timing and direction of Questions, could not we invite the Prime Minister to tell the House what, in his view, falls within his administrative responsibility from the point of view of Questions?

Mr. Speaker: It is all right to ask the right hon. Gentleman what his practice is in answering Questions. What the hon. Lady is saying appears to come within that principle. That is all right.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1964–65

CLASS I VOTE 3. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,817,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and two Ministers without Portfolio.—[£1,600,000 has been voted on account.]

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Redmayne],—put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

COST OF LIVING

4.34 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move,
That this House, recalling the pledge by Her Majesty's Government in 1951 to mend the hole in the housewife's purse, regrets the failure of Ministers to honour this promise with the result that rising prices have reduced the value of the £1 sterling to 13s. 4d. during the 13 years of Conservative rule, thus endangering Great Britain's overseas trading position and causing hardship to all sections of the community.
When I read that some commentators were saying that this was to be a rough and hard debate, I was somewhat sceptical because after 19 years in the House I have found it impossible to judge the atmosphere of the Committee of Supply in advance; and I have a feeling that I may well have been right. However, that does not lessen the Government's failure in this matter, even though

the temperature inside the Chamber may not be as high as the temperature outside, at any rate at this moment.
Although I shall certainly have some stringent criticisms to make of the Government and of their record as opposed to their promises—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who rebuked me on the last occasion for not producing league tables, will be glad to hear that I have looked them all up for his benefit and propose to give them all to him—nevertheless I hope that the debate will not be left there, because in the present critical situation in which the economy finds itself it is just as important to know what the future course of policy should be and what the Government propose to do, as the economy is nearing flashpoint, as it is at present, and our overseas trade position is endangering the pre-election boom.
Although this is something which I hope to develop in my speech, I am sure that Government supporters cannot be sitting easy in their seats immediately before an election knowing that the value of the £ has steadily slithered downwards until it is now worth only 13s. 4d. compared with its value in 1951.
We debated this issue as recently as 11th March last. Since then a number of formidable price increases have been announced. I do not pretend that I am able to give all of them. I culled some of them from the Press. Petrol is going up by ½d. a gallon. Car insurance premiums will be going up by between 15 and 30 per cent. According to a survey made by a Sunday newspaper, it is estimated that house prices are likely to rise by 10 per cent. this year. Rents still continue to go up. The cost of building land continues to rise. Today, the 6d., 9d. and 1s. fares on the buses have been raised. Railway fares have been raised today. There is an additional 7½ per cent. on season tickets and on other fares within a certain radius of London. It is estimated that rates this year will increase by 7·8 per cent., according to the calculations of municipal treasurers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer put a 1d. on a pint of beer and 4d. on a packet of cigarettes. His policy has increased the price of electricity through the returns which the electricity boards are required to make upon their capital


assets. Road haulage rates are to go up by 5 per cent. The price of smokeless fuel is to be increased by £1 a ton in the autumn. This weekend beef prices had risen so much that it was cheaper to buy a turkey. The Minister of Agriculture has cast himself in the rôle of a twentieth century Marie Antoinette. So luxuries and necessities alike have gone up in price since 11th March. Every one of the increases to which I have just referred has been announced since our recent debate. Profits, of course, have gone up, too, and the Financial Times list of companies showed a substantial increase in the statement which was put out last week.
Some prices have fallen. I am glad to see that a number of bodies have undertaken not to raise their prices. That must bring a great deal of comfort to the Chancellor's heart. But, overall, the right hon. Gentleman knows that prices have been shooting up since our last debate on 11th March, and, indeed, since the beginning of this year. As the boom has matured, so prices have continued to rise.
Since January this year prices have been rising at the rate of more than 5 per cent. per annum. If the present trend continues during the rest of the year, of which we have had six months, 1964 will be the worst year for rising prices since the Korean War of 1950–51—but without the same cause.
Over the whole period of Conservative Government, prices have gone up by approximately 50 per cent. This is astonishing, because the Conservative Party won the 1951 General Election on an entirely different prospectus. Older Members of the House, but probably not the younger ones, will certainly remember the document "Britain Strong and Free". [HON. MEMBERS: "It was very good."] I know; it is so good I am going to quote it.
I was impressed by it at the time, but bitter experience has convinced me not to believe it. It contained eccentric proposals like forming a new Home Guard, ensuring that we had better relations with Egypt, strengthening our position in the Middle East—all good strong stuff, but the country does not believe it now.

I particularly want to return to the subject of today's debate, which is the rise in the cost of living. What the Conservatives made as their central issue, according to this manifesto, was the continual rising cost of living. On page 14, they said this:
Whatever the national importance of other issues "—
no matter whether the Middle East, the Home Guard, or even university representation—
it is no exaggeration to say that the rising cost of living is the main day-to-day worry of ordinary men and women. A Government will be judged according to the effect of its programmes upon rising costs and prices.
They then set out their policy in very general terms.
I must say that in view of the pressure that is being brought to bear upon the Labour Party to state every jot and tittle of its proposals some commentators ought to read the very general nature of what is contained in this document. I learned a lesson from this very early on, and also from the Chancellor, who used to tell us that he certainly had no particular opinion of anything that was stuffed in a manifesto. "Stuffed" was the word he used.
Having set out their policy in general terms, the Conservatives were honest enough to say, "Of course, we shall not be able to check rising prices immediately. All this will take time". On page 15 they say:
All these things will be achieved only by immense efforts and after some time but, carried into effect together, they will enable us to control, and then, as we are returned, to reduce the cost of living for all.
That is what they won the election on.
The greatest national issue was the cost of living. They were going to check, stabilise and then reduce it. There was another thing on which they won it, also, as my hon. Friends will remember, and that was the pledge to reduce Government expenditure. I shall come back to that a little later, because I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want to say something about it. But, of course, they know that they have no defence in reality against the substance of this charge. That is why their Amendment, which, I suppose, will be moved later, makes no reference either to their 1951 pledge. I am a little surprised that


they should not want to repeat their pledge of 1951—are they ashamed of it now?
We begin our Motion by saying:
That this House, recalling the pledge by Her Majesty's Government in 1951 to mend the hole in the housewife's purse,. …
The Conservatives might at least have proposed to delete everything after those words and moved on, in their Amendment, to give their explanation. But they want to obliterate all memory of this from the OFFICIAL REPORT and Journal of the House of Commons when the vote is taken tonight and they get an automatic machine-made majority. I can understand it, but I am a little surprised that they should do this.
What they do in fact, knowing that they cannot possibly defend their failure, is to ring the changes on a series of alternative excuses. Here the first of my league tables comes in, the Chancellor will be delighted to know, because he used this argument last time. They say, "Well, we have done better than other nations in checking it." Let me go through the figures. In the world league of high prices there are nine major countries. Taking the period from 1951 to 1963, in the world league of high prices we are third from the top. Above us ranks France, whose price increases have been 68 per cent., and Sweden whose price increases have amounted to 51 per cent. Ours are 50 per cent. Below us come Italy with 37 per cent. price increase, Holland 32 per cent., Germany 22 per cent., the United States 18 per cent., Canada 17 per cent., and Belgium 16 per cent.
The Chancellor, I thought, fell below his usual standard of fair argument last time by taking a very highly selective period of 12 months from mid-March, 1962 to mid-March, 1963. He managed to show that over that period Continental prices had, in fact, increased faster than ours. I take it that even the Chancellor will not deny that he has been a member of the Government for 13 years and that it is over the whole period that we are entitled to judge what the comparisons should be. Over that period we are third in the league. There are six other countries below us—

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry, but I am not giving way. We have lost an hour of our time this afternoon. It was mainly lost because of the muddle, if I may say so to the Prime Minister, that the Government made over the VC10, in which two different sets of directives have been issued to Ministers at two different times. I shall come back to that.
Secondly, the argument that the Conservatives used is, "In the any case we are doing better than the Labour Government did." This is the hoary old chestnut that appears on Government platforms. I do not expect hon. Members opposite to acknowledge that a Labour Government were operating in the aftermath of war. I do not expect them to acknowledge that we were engaged in a process of demobilising over 4 million men and women, that we had to retool the factories and start from scratch with the export trade, that Lend-Lease was cut off within a matter of a month of the Labour Government being returned, that because of the Korean War the prices of raw materials doubled within a short time. The simple truth is that despite all this they have not done so well or much better than the Labour Government did. That is the remarkable thing.
I will give the figures. The price of imported materials from 1945 to 1951 more than doubled and they are substantial constituent of our total cost. But from 1951 to 1963 the price of raw materials did not more than double—it dropped—and in 1963 it was about 10 per cent. lower than in 1951. It has now picked up again, as the Chancellor was quick to remind us in our last debate. The Bank of England states that the price of imported raw materials is 8 per cent. higher; other authorities say that it is 6 per cent. higher than a year ago. But even if it is all square with the 1951 position, the Government do not have so much to boast about in terms of rising prices. It was a substantial and uncovenanted benefit which they enjoyed.
Despite, however, the doubled price of raw material imports in the period from 1945 to 1951, the retail price index increased faster in a number of countries than it did in our own. I will now give the figures, the league table for which the Chancellor asked me and


which he rebuked me for not producing last time. In Switzerland, price increases from 1945 to 1951 were 8 per cent.; in Denmark 22 per cent.; in Norway 22 per cent.; in Britain 27 per cent.; Sweden 30 per cent.; the United States 44 per cent.; Holland 45 per cent.; Canada 53 per cent.; Italy 117 per cent.; and France 447 per cent.
I do not know what conclusions hon. Members opposite draw from that, but if I were a member of a Conservative Administration I should not be too proud if, after 13 years, I had to acknowledge that we could not do any better than this. As this record shows, the Labour Government can be proud of the fact that, despite the difficulties which they inherited—and every fairminded man outside an electioneering atmosphere knows that they did inherit them—we kept the increase in the cost of living down to such reasonable levels.
In the league of high prices from 1945 to 1951, we were seventh from the top. In 1951 to 1963, we were third from the top. This, unlike most league tables, is a table in which the higher one goes, the worse one is doing. Our position relative to other countries has worsened between 1951 and 1963 by comparison with the 1945 to 1951 table which I have given.

Mr. William Yates: Let us have the earnings table.

Mr. Callaghan: Hon. Members opposite need not worry. I am facing all their arguments head on. None of them is worth very much.
The next argument on which the Government ring the changes if they are beaten on both of the others, and in case somebody knows what has happened, is to say, "In any case, we are steadily slowing it down. Over the last 13 years, we have been reducing the pace of increase and now we are getting to the stage when, if you give us a bit longer, we will have started to stabilise, if not to reduce."
Let us look at the position. From 1951 to 1955, the period of the first postwar Conservative Government, prices increased by 15 per cent. During the time of the second Conservative Government, from 1955 to 1959, they increased by a further 11 per cent. The Government

had slowed down the increase from 15 per cent. to 11 per cent. From 1959 to 1964, however, the increase was between 14 per cent and 15 per cent. From this point of view, the most successful period of Conservative Government was the second one. In the latest period, however, they are back to where they started and by the time of the election I have no doubt that the increase in prices to which the British people are being subjected will be quite as high as it was in the first period of Conservative Government from 1951 to 1955.
Nor, I add, for it is another argument that the party opposite sometimes uses, have they increased the social benefits as much as Labour did in the aftermath of the war. I never know whether hon. Members opposite have forgotten, or whether it is a deliberate tactic on their part to forget the level at which old-age pensions started. Many of us on this side, however, remember that when we came into the House of Commons, the old-age pension was 10s. a week and that when we left office, in 1951, it was 30s. a week. What the Conservative Government have managed to do over the whole course of 13 years is to raise it from 30s. to 67s. 6d. a week for a single person. That is nothing very much to boast about in this period of unprecedented prosperity of which the party opposite speaks.
Next, the party opposite says, "It may be that we have not kept prices down, but, at least, the standard of living has gone up." That is the argument upon which they always fall back in the end. I do not think much of it as an argument. It is certainly not a complete answer, certainly not to many of the constituents and supporters of hon. Members opposite, especially those who have invested in National Savings Certificates or in gilt-edged, or who have set aside money for a pension in their old age, and who find that the cost of living has eaten it away.
Anybody who bought a National Savings Certificate in 1951 and who continued to hold it, as he is entitled to do, for 17 years, of which 13 have now elapsed, would find that his certificate, together with the accumulated interest, was worth less today than the 15s. which he gave for it. That is not a very proud record, or one to be offset by saying,


"Prices may have gone up, but, on the other hand, look how the standard of living has gone up, too" Even by this test, the Government have done very poorly indeed. By comparison with other countries, they come out of the whole range of figures very poorly.
I want to rely heavily in this matter on the comparison with other countries, because that is of great importance. The trouble is that our economic expansion rate has been so low—2½ per cent. per annum on average over the whole period of Conservative Government, whereas other countries have been growing at a rate of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. or even higher. European workers', standards have gone up much faster than the British.
That is shown in these figures of the increase in private consumption per head. Nine countries are included in the O.E.C.D. figures published in November, 1962. I put the tables together. Of the nine countries with increases in private consumption per head in housing, washing machines, telephones, television and all the rest, we are seventh. That is the Government's record, seventh out of nine. I propose to give hon. Members the figures. In West Germany, the increase in private consumption per head from 1951 to 1961 was 85 per cent. In Austria, it was 68 per cent. Whilst I am giving these figures I will give our own so that hon. Members may keep it in mind. Britain comes seventh at 22 per cent.
I will start again. In West Germany, the increase in private consumption from 1951 to 1961 was 85 per cent.; in Austria, 68 per cent.; Italy, 51 per cent.; France, 38 per cent.; Holland, 36 per cent.; Sweden, 32 per cent.; Britain, 22 per cent.; Belgium, 17 per cent. and the United States 17 per cent.

Mr. William Clark: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry, I am not giving way to anybody. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give the base figures."] Hon. Members will not put me off this way [Interruption.] When the base figure is asked for, I take it that what is meant is where we start the table from. We start it from 1951. This is the increase which has taken place since 1951, taking 1951 as 100. Of course, it is true that Italy

started off much lower, but the United States started off much higher. It does not make any difference to the end figure. [Laughter.] Of course not. The comparison is the same.
As a result of this, it was said recently by Dr. Balogh that the German workman's living standards are now higher than the British workman's living standards for the first time since the days of Henry Tudor, nearly 500 years ago. I hope that hon. Members opposite are proud of 13 years of Conservative Government. Moreover, at the rate at which the table is moving, the French will soon overtake our living standards. The French working man will have as high a standard of life as that of the British working man.
It is true that recently, for the last 12 months, our living standards have been growing at 4 per cent. per annum, which is getting a little closer to the growth in the eight or nine other countries of which I have spoken. I also draw the conclusion that if this increase of 4 per cent. per annum, which the Government have now assumed and on which they are basing their programmes, had begun to operate in 1951, the British working man's wage packet would now be worth £3 10s. a week more, the German worker would not have overtaken him, the Frenchman would not be treading on his heels and the Italian would be much further behind than he is even today.
What is undoubtedly true is that postwar experience has shown the difficulty of combining a fast expansion rate in the economy with steady prices. Both these things come into play, as the Chancellor constantly reminds us. The full use of the nation's resources—in men, in scarce materials, in capacity in industry and in skill in manpower—all these things combine to drag costs upwards. There is no doubt about this. It is agreed on both sides of the House. But in the combination of the two Germany has undoubtedly been most successful in having a fast rate of expansion, as I have shown, in terms of increased private consumption, and also in keeping a steady price level.
There are reasons for it, known to hon. Gentlemen on both sides. Some countries have sacrificed a steady level of prices in order to get a fast rate of expansion. France is one example; Italy


is another. Admittedly, their prices have gone up, but their economic expansion has gone ahead even faster. Some countries have kept a steady level of prices at the price of a low expansion rate. The United States and Belgium are two examples of those.
But there is one major country which at the same time has managed to combine a high rate of increase in prices and a low expansion rate, and that is Great Britain, and that is the real indictment against the Government. They could argue successfully if they had Italy's record in terms of expansion of the economy of Germany's record. They could argue then successfully. What they cannot escape from is the fact that they have both allowed prices to increase and have failed to make the economy grow.
All too truly, we have had the worst of both worlds—a snail's pace economy and a depreciating currency. That is what the Government leave us at the end of 13 years.

Mr. W. Clark: And low unemployment.

Mr. Callaghan: I know the hon. Gentleman has been promoted and is now Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Clark: No, I am not.

Mr. Callaghan: I congratulate him on it. Now that he has achieved high office, I have no doubt that he will be able to make his own speech in due course.
I was about to refer to an editorial in The Times this morning. I want to say a word to the editor of The Times, if he intends to read this debate. I think that he takes too despairing a view both about the House of Commons and the debate and the problem itself. I put it this way. A fast rate of expansion in the economy would at least make high prices endurable, for the nation would then be able to afford to have the resources to aid those who were injured by the process of fast expansion. Till we can find the means of achieving both those desirable ends, namely, a steady level of prices and a fast rate of expansion, without creating large pools of unemployed—if we cannot do one, then at least let us do the other—I invite the editor of The Times to consider which

he believes to be the least of the three evils which I have outlined.
Moreover, with a fast rate of expansion such as other countries have had since the war we would have been able to finance the social infrastructure which has become so decayed. The country needs modernisation. Is that not generally agreed? City centres, housing, transport, roads, schools, hospitals—the needs are well known and generally admitted; but this requires additional Government expenditure, and when some Tories—I do not see them present this afternoon—and the editor of The Times gird and rail against additional Government expenditure they have to answer this question: how do they think this modernisation would be achieved if the Government themselves do not undertake it?
The Government have committed themselves. The Chancellor has committed himself to an extra £2,000 million of expenditure in four years. In four years' time there will be £2,000 million more for these purposes and they have had to embark on a crash programme for electoral reasons to try to overcome the arrears which have accumulated because of the slow rate of growth of the economy. The result has been as we have seen in the hospital programme, a programme both belated and botched, as most crash programmes usually are. But their crash programme, together with the additional commitments the Chancellor has taken on, is based on a figure of a rate of expansion of 4·1 per cent. per annum for at least five years, although we have never maintained a rate of expansion of that rate for a period longer than 18 months. So they are really making a gesture of faith based on an inadequate hypothesis so far as they are concerned.
To sum up this part of what I am saying, the Government who were returned to power in 1951 with a mandate to cut Government expenditure and pledged to reduce the cost of living will leave office having achieved a record increase in the cost of living and having pledged themselves to record increases in expenditure. So does the wheel go full circle for the Tory Government.
There is another argument. I can see that the hon. Gentleman is impatient for me to come to it, and I am now coming to it. That argument is that it is all the fault of the trade unions.

Mr. W. Yates: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: No.
This argument is not so nakedly expressed in this Chamber as it is on the doorsteps and in the canvassing by Conservative supporters and in public meetings where it cannot be answered. It is the argument that it is all the fault of the trade unions—if only they would not put in these wage claims, if only they would allow us to do what the Germans do, we would be able to solve all these problems. My hon. Friends have heard this argument, and we have heard it time after time, and it is widely believed, and skilfully propagated, and still goes on, and it suits the book of the Tory Party that it should be believed. It is quite unjust, as everybody who has studied the matter knows to be the case.
I take, against, a comparison with other countries. There is an interesting pamphlet which has been written by Mr. Colin Clark. I do not agree with all his conclusions—

Mr. Harold Davies: I am glad my hon. Friend does not.

Mr. Callaghan: —but at least I can accept his statistics. I do not think that my hon. Friend need quarrel about them, because he has assembled on page 23 a series of international statistics concerning the rate of increase of earnings of 19 countries from 1953 to 1957 and from 1957 to 1963 and they are set out in this table. What it shows is this, that out of 19 countries we stand twelfth in the average annual rate of increase of earnings. Earnings have increased literally faster in Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland.
The simple truth is that our present position arises from a combination of increasing earnings with low productivity and one cannot isolate one factor from the other. The two must go together in every discussion which takes place. And for low productivity the

responsibility lies both with industry and with the Government, and that is why I say it is unjust to isolate the trade unions in this particular matter.
So of our present position I must say that it is extremely disappointing, after an increase in productivity which we secured last year, a latent increase arising out of the stop-go in 1961–62, productivity seems to have stopped rising for the time being, and moreover, the high levels of employment in London and the South-East and the Midlands are resulting in increasing costs to industry at the present time. Raw material prices are going up. I know I carry the Chancellor with me at least in this little section of what I am saying. Fourthly, retail prices are rising. Fifthly, on the other side of the coin—this is a problem which must worry the Chancellor very considerably—industrial production has been stationary, according to the tables, for nearly five months and seems to be very sticky indeed. And, even more worrying for him, exports are stodgy; while world trade is increasing our share is not, and it is still declining. And imports are too high.
We are today bringing into this country materials, manufactures and semi-manufactures, which we cannot afford, and which at the moment we are not paying for. Let us be quite clear about this. Whatever conclusions we may draw from it, this is the position, and as the Chancellor knows, it is getting worse and not better. The balance of trade figures came as a thunderclap to a number of people. I do not know whether they came as so much of a surprise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he knows that he is at the moment running a dreadful race between the date of the election and the date on which he will have to make major decisions of policy, and the question is: which will come first?
The Chancellor is gambling on the election date coming first, but the incoming Government will be required to handle an external position in which we are running deeper into debt every month, and an internal position—and this is a new feature—an internal position in which the economy is not running all out, not working to capacity, except, perhaps, in building and construction in some parts of the country. Of course, the


normal remedy of the Government in the past, faced with a situation which the internal deficit has coincided with the economy moving full out, has been the slamming on of the brakes. This time such a solution is not applicable.
I do not envy the Chancellor of the Exchequer his colleagues, flanked as he is by the Lord Privy Seal, on the one hand and the Minister of Defence on the other, both of whom returned to the classic stop-go method of halting the economy. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman is going to be in bad spirits with these two right hon. Gentlemen. I read what Lord Kilmuir said about the present Lord Privy Seal. It is only too clear that this appointment was a mistake. There were few indications that he had thought deeply on the great problems of our time.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's first Budget gave the impression of being based on a detailed forecast of the future, but it was proved wrong on every matter of importance and Ministers were confronted with an economic crisis as astonishing and urgent as it was unexpected. What were virtually panic measures to meet the drain on our resources were called for as a necessity.
Lord Kilmuir has something to say also about an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Heathcoat Amory. It was evident that he had lost his grip on economic matters and it was with some relief that we heard of his determination to resign as soon as the Finance Bill had passed through the Commons.
When I read about the shortage of talent on the Labour side I comfort myself with these comments by Ministers who lived with them and so I do not envy the Chancellor his present difficulties with his colleagues. Indeed, we are in a difficult position because the expansionists among those in the country who want to see us moving ahead are terrified about telling the truth about the serious nature of the problem because they are afraid that they will wake the Lord Privy Seal and alert the Minister of Defence once again. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell)."] The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest is not in the Cabinet, thank goodness,

but the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of Defence are. They have cost this country some £5,000 million per annum in lost production, production that would have enabled us to build the schools and would have enabled us to avoid the crash programmes for housing and hospitals. If their remedies were adopted once again—and they are still prominent members of the Cabinet—then industry will be thrust into despair, we shall cripple our social progress and wreck our prospects of additional exports.
Under the Tories this country faces the prospect with these men who have learned so little in the last 13 years that the present current boom will peter out once again and will end in a pay pause, a credit squeeze and unemployment. We must also be grateful that the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade did not carry us into the Common Market on the terms then proposed.
I wonder if the House has paused to think what would have been the effect on our import situation today. How much more would bread have gone up when we look at the price that has to be paid in the Community for a ton of wheat in comparison with what we pay our farmers and even the guaranteed price which we are laying down? The plain truth is that we have suffered from a great deal of muddled thinking, not only on the VC10. It is the same sort of muddled thinking in the Cabinet as led to the B.O.A.C. controversy in which Government policy has been pulling in two different directions at once.
Of course, the Chancellor today must operate in the international rather than in the domestic field and in the present weakness of our overseas trade position he is right to seek a credit of 1,000 million dollars from the International Monetary Fund. We should all be careful in discussing this position because everyone, I hope, wants to see the expansion continue even though some may not think it possible, though I do. But that does not relieve the Prime Minister of the obligation to tell the country what the facts are. There is far too much soothing syrup being put about today concerning the overseas trade position which is as bad today as it was in 1961, and which then led to the pay pause, even


though some of the short-term defences can shore up the position for a little.
I refer to the I.M.F., to the B.O.P. arrangement with the United States, and so on. But the Chancellor must take the measures open to him to deal with his balance of payments problem—I will not use the word "crisis" yet. The right hon. Gentleman should give exports encouragement, and measures are available to enable him to do this. More flexible prices in exports would be a very great help. If there is one thing which has been analysed in recent researches it is that British prices are far more sticky and far less flexible than those of our competitors in the export field.
The right hon. Gentleman should discourage imports, and measures are open to him to do that. What we need above all are improved liquidity arrangements especially for the developing countries and in order to take the strain of the two major reserve currencies of the dollar and the £. In Tokio we can expect little progress represented as we shall be by a Government with no authority and a Government that are expected shortly to be defeated at the polls. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite can take their own comfort. I am saying what internationals think about it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may or may not like it, but certainly there will be no authority behind the Chancellor when he goes to Tokio a month before the election, and I expect him to make little progress. It would have been far better to have had the election before the conference.
The main difficulty with which the Chancellor is confronted is that we should maintain our rate of expansion. We have managed to get an expansion rate of 4 per cent., but for the third time we have run into the balance of payments problem. This time the expansion of industry must go on. Is this the united objective of the Government? Does the Chancellor believe this, and do the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of Defence, one of whom was rejected from the Government and the other who resigned from it? Does the Chancellor carry a united Government with him in the expansion of British industry even despite the present balance of payments difficulties?
If this is the right hon. Gentleman's objective, how is he going to do it?

I think that we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he is going to do it and he should feel bound to give us the answer. Faced with these difficulties and faced with the objective which he says he has of an expansion rate of 4 per cent., how is he going to achieve this objective? What measures is he going to take concerning our balance of payments problems, both in the long run or in the short run? Is he going to take drastic steps similar to those taken by his colleagues in the past? It will be insufficient to refer to the short-term arrangements in the International Monetary Fund or the B.O.P. arrangements.
The Prime Minister frequently says in the country, "Look how irresponsible the Labour Opposition are." The right hon. Gentleman says that the Labour Opposition are going to take over a programme of social benefits, housing, school and hospital building which is larger than that of the present Government. The Prime Minister frequently makes this criticism. It is true, of course, that our programme was for a long time larger than that of the Government, because in the 1950s we based our programme on a growth rate of 4 per cent. whereas the Government have been jog-trotting along at 2½ per cent.
We believed that if the expansion rate could be put up to 4 per cent. we could contain the increase which was necessary to modernise Britain. That was why the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) was able to poke fun at us in 1959 and say in the course of the election, "Look, they are going to have another £1,000 million of expenditure, and yet they will not increase taxation." That is what the Tories are now doing and what they are proud of doing. They have at last discovered the merits of putting the growth rate up to 4 per cent.
Since they have committed themselves to a 4 per cent. growth rate and since they have committed themselves to the dividend that will arise from that—a £2,000 million increase in Government expenditure—it has become clear that, although this addition will make a substantial improvement in our housing, road and hospitals programmes and so on, it is nothing like sufficient for


the needs that we have in modernising the country. This is where the difference comes out.
An examination shows that the target of £2,000 million extra falls short of the needs that we have if we are to achieve modernisation in a reasonable period of time. That is why a number of my hon. Friends have been pressing for more. We on this side of the House certainly cannot be permanently satisfied with an expansion rate of 4 per cent. per annum. The arrears on 4 per cent. per annum would take too long to clear off. It is the probable maximum that the Chancellor can hope for in 1964, and maybe in 1965, because of the balance of payments troubles. However, 4 per cent. should be to this nation a base camp and not a mountain peak. It should be the base from which we move forward. We should be aiming in the latter part of the 1960s for a 5 per cent. and then a 6 per cent. growth rate. Only then shall we attain the programme of social expenditure that is both necessary and desirable.
I want to make it clear that on this side of the House we recognise that our programmes cannot be achieved until we are maintaining a growth rate of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. The 4 per cent. has already been fully committed by the Government. We shall have to strive to move to a higher rate of expansion in order to fulfil these programmes. They can be attained by a combination of factors—by planning our resources, by fixing our targets, by new investment in industry to stimulate expansion, by using more scientists and technologists and engineers in industry, and by ensuring that our industry, especially our export industry, is customer-based and not product-based—and if we had had regard to this some years ago in the early stages of the VC10 controversy, perhaps changes would have been made in the policy then which would have obviated the great loss which has been sustained today.
Next, there should be import substitution through new industries at home and an all-inclusive and fair incomes policy which would include earnings, dividends and rents. There should be continuous pressure on prices and especially on monopolies and restrictive practices, and there should be flexible export prices.

By more competence and less waste in Government we could ensure that there would be fewer Blue Streak and Ferranti projects for us to hold inquests on.
A society in which tax avoidance and Stock Exchange gains more than six months old and three-year land speculation go scot-free—which does not augur well for an incomes policy—while the P.A.Y.E. taxpayer pays on every penny and the postman has to ban overtime in order to get the ear of the Government, means that we cannot in this country have a true or a fair incomes policy. This is the legacy that the Chancellor has inherited.
The weakness of the Government is that millions of our citizens no longer believe in the Government's fairness or competence; they do not believe that the Government are just, and they certainly have little reason to believe that Her Majesty's Ministers show compassion except in the face of the electorate. That is why the Government have reached the end of the road.

5.25 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudlin): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
supports the economic and financial policies of Her Majesty's Government designed to secure growth without inflation, and welcomes the greater stability in prices of recent years and the high level of employment and living standards as evidence of the success of these policies".
The Motion and the Amendment deal with rising prices, and I intend to devote the greater part of my speech to that subject. But perhaps I might start by saying one or two words about the general economic situation, as it has been raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's rather gloomy forecast of the situation that we are facing. We have seen in the last year or so a very rapid expansion of the economy. I think I am right in saying offhand that the production index, even though recently it has flattened out, shows an increase over the last 12 months, seasonally adjusted, of about 8 points overall and about 10 points in manufacturing industry, a very large advance, though the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues said at the time


of the 1963 Budget that it would not happen.
I said quite clearly in the 1964 Budget that my purpose was to moderate the rate of growth, which at the turn of the year was probably proceeding at about 6 per cent. overall, to something like the 4 per cent. growth rate that we can sustain over a period. That was the purpose of the 1964 Budget. I was criticised on balance for not having done enough to slow things down. I think there is now quite clear evidence that things are going the way I predicted at the time. If one looks at the figures of production, employment and sales, the trend clearly is of moderation of the rate of advance. If one looks at the returns from industry, goes to the F.B.I. or talks to people in industry and business who know the facts and prospects, one learns that the expansion is continuing but continuing at a healthy rate. We are not running into the inflationary problems of the tear-away boom that we have sometimes in the past experienced. I put the domestic economic position as developing as I thought it would be developing at the time of the Budget this year.
The external position, of course, gives rise for concern. No one would deny that. The current trade position shows a deficit, and on top we have the capital outflow, which this year is high. But, once again, both these things I have said clearly and in advance. I said that we should be facing a current deficit as the inevitable accompaniment of the early stages of a period of expansion. I also said in the Budget speech that 1964 would show a probably unusually high level of capital outflow. Therefore, the current strain on the balance of payments is neither unexpected nor a cause for alarm. It is a cause for concern, and for careful watch, and for realising how much we have to do, but I do not think it should be described in any way as a cause for alarm.
Certainly I would not accept, if I may be political for a moment in reply to the hon. Gentleman, the point of view that I am gambling on the timing of the General Election and the timing of measures that need to be taken. This is what the hon. Gentleman's colleagues did in 1951. In 1951, with clouds gathering all that year against the balance of

payments, they did nothing more than cut the dollar cheese ration—nothing more whatever. I have increased the Bank Rate in the early part of this year with all the consequences, political and economic, and imposed £100 million additional taxation in the Budget. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not do that in 1951. I made clear that if I think that any further measures are required to maintain the position of sterling or the health of the balance of payments. I will take them, and take them as soon as I think they are necessary, whatever the political consequences. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman to accuse me of what his colleagues did in 1951. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was 13 years ago."] It may have been 13 years ago, but the principle is the same.
The subject of the debate is the cost of living. The hon. Gentleman said that he would deal not with the past but with the future course of policy. But I did not hear much about the future, nor about what the Opposition would do about rising prices. I heard a great deal about prices but I shall not embark on the contest with the hon. Gentleman about the past. I will, however, quote one figure.
We have been in office about twice as long as the Labour Government. They were in office for over six years and we have been in office for over 12. In their six years of office, prices were rising at 6½ per cent. a year. In the first six years of Conservative Government, the rise was 4½ per cent. per year, while in the last six years it has been 2½ per cent. The further we get from the policies of Socialism the better we do. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can read these figures for themselves in the published statistics. They are correct. I shall not now deal any more with the past. The facts are on the record and we shall not let people forget them.
I shall deal, as the hon. Gentleman said he would do, with the present situation, and problems of rising prices and the alternative means of dealing with them. This, surely, is the fair way in which things should be set out what are the problems and what are the alternative policies of Government and Opposition for dealing with rising prices? These problems, as we all admit, are, both socially and economically, amongst the most serious facing the country and


amongst the most serious in a democracy in modern conditions.
The experience we have of rising prices is not exceptional to us and I want to establish the facts about them—first, to strike away some of the special pleading we hear from time to time and, secondly, to try to isolate the two elements in rising prices. These are the pressure of rising costs and the pull of rising demand. The two influences working on prices—economists can argue which is the more important at any given time—are rising home costs and rising import costs on the one hand and rising and excessive demand on the other hand. These are the two related factors affecting prices.
I want first to talk about quotations of rising prices. The hon. Member has a tendency to argue from the particular to the general—to quote one or two examples as if they were an indication of the general trend. He did it again today. I do not carry in my head all the exact figures but I have looked up what he said last time we had a debate on this. He then quoted a sample of rising prices experienced by the Cardiff City Council as if they were typical. After all, if they were not thought to be typical, there would be no point in quoting them.
I have, however, taken the trouble to compare the increases he quoted with the average experience at the time. He quoted meat prices as going up 20 to 25 per cent. The general experience at the time was 12 per cent. for meat and 1 per cent. for food as a whole. He quoted blankets as going up by 29 per cent. The general experience in furnishing and soft furnishing was a 3 per cent. rise. He also quoted uniform jacket prices as having risen by 14 per cent., whereas the general clothing average was 1 per cent.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member did not give way to me and I shall not give way to him.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the Chancellor. I shall not interrupt again.

Hon. Members: You did not give way to the Chancellor.

Mr. Callaghan: That is quite true and it was very unusual for me. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is now showing the fallacy of averages. I was quoting actual figures given to me about the cost, for instance, of uniform jackets bought by Cardiff City Council. The right hon. Gentleman now gives an average. I cannot know how accurate it is.

Mr. Maudling: The "fallacy of averages" is what people talk about when averages disprove their case. The figures I quoted of the average were not based on some purchases by one local authority but on experience of a whole range of goods throughout the country. That gives a clear picture of how selective quotations of individual items that happen to suit the hon. Gentleman's case really distort argument and cloud counsel.
The other distortion of this practice is to ignore the seasonal factor in the cost of living. Everyone knows that June or mid-summer is the peak of the cost of living index and particularly the peak of food prices. They always rise at that time of the year and fall in the second part of the year. To quote, as the hon. Member did, a 5 per cent. rise in the first half of the year and talk about that being doubled in the second half is a complete distortion of figures. I might as well refer to summer reductions in coal prices, which knock about four points off the index for fuel, as though that were a true movement in the cost of living for the year as a whole, when it is a fairly seasonal statistical factor.
To get a fair comparison, one must compare seasonal peak prices with seasonal peak prices of an earlier year or a seasonal trough with an earlier seasonal trough.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North) indicated dissent.

Mr. Maudling: I know that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) does not like that argument but it is difficult to refute. The simple proposition is that one compares like with like. If one compares the cost of living index of June, 1964, with that of June, 1963, one sees that there was an increase


of 3·4 per cent. and this was the trend of that year. Nearly 1 per cent., admittedly, was an increase in the duties on tobacco and alcohol. But surely it is clear that indirect taxes are on a different footing from general price increases because, if one puts more tax on a piece of meat, for instance, or on a vacuum cleaner, the customer is still getting the same article for more money but is making a contribution by higher taxation to increased social services which do not figure in the cost of living index, although the indirect tax itself does. Therefore, any addition to the cost of living index which comes from increased taxation is misleading unless one takes into account the increased social services financed by that taxation.
It is important to remember that Income Tax, although it does not feature in the cost of living index, features in the cost of living, and, therefore, that measures to increase Income Tax have as much effect upon people's living standards as measures that more directly affect prices. We had these increases in the cost of living index during the past year, and I want to examine one or two factors, one or two particular items, to show why price increases have come about. The hon. Gentleman said that he would do it but he made little reference to reasons behind prices, and I want to correct the balance.

Mr. Walter Monslow: Including land?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, of course. First, however, I will deal with food prices, which are by far the biggest item in the whole index. As I have said, June tends to be the month when they are at their highest. If we compare June, 1962, with June, 1964, we find that the 1962 index figure was 106·4 and the 1964 was 109·1—an increase of 2·7 per cent. in two years, or an annual increase of 1·35 per cent. This has been measured in the index for food prices on the proper basis of seasonal comparison over the last two years.
At a time when food import prices have risen by about 17 per cent., this seems to me to be a fairly substantial contribution to stabilising the cost of living. The price of imported foods rose between the first quarter of 1962 and the first quarter of 1964 by 17 per cent.

Despite that, we have held the increase in retail food prices to only 2·7 per cent. over the same period. These figures will, I hope, be commended because they are an accurate reflection of the situation.

Mr. Jay: I hope, in that case, that the right hon. Gentleman will remember in future to add that, in 1951, import prices rose 40 per cent.

Mr. Maudling: That is a matter the right hon. Gentleman often refers to, but he forgets it when he discusses our position. I have already quoted what happened in the six years of the Labour Government and the first and second six years of the Conservative Government. I am saying now that import prices for food have risen by 17 per cent. while the food index has risen by 2·7 per cent.
People are concerned about the actual movement of prices—bread, meat, bacon, sugar and butter, which represent the biggest increase in the cost of living, and manufactured foods, another item about which we have heard a good deal in previous debates. I am told that two-thirds of the final delivered price of the loaf is represented by wages in various stages of manufacture and distribution. This is probably the main reason why there has been some increase in the price of bread over these two years.
As everyone knows, there is an international shortage of meat, combined with increased consumption of meat on the Continent of Europe. It is an interesting commentary on our meat prices that one of the reasons why meat goes from this country to Europe is that its price in Europe is substantially higher than it is here.
The same is true of sugar and butter, where increases of prices reflect—as we must realistically recognise—a world shortage of both those commodities which we cannot cut out simply by saying that we do not like it.
In our last debate on this subject, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East quoted a number of increases in the prices of manufactured foods. I have often heard hon. Members say that a particular item of grocery has gone up by a 1d. or 2d. or 2½d. I agree that this is an important matter, but let us consider how these things happen. It


is true that in the last six months "other foods", as they are called in the index, mainly manufactured foods, have risen by four points, but in the previous 18 months they had fallen by one point. Prices of manufactured foodstuffs are not constantly adjusted, but costs are absorbed until the stage comes when some increase must be made. But over the whole period of the two years, if my mathematics are correct, there has been a modest increase of about three points.
Have the Opposition no suggestions to make about how to bring down food prices? One would have thought that that would emerge from this debate this afternoon. If they are criticising the level of prices and if they say that food prices are the biggest constituent in the index and are too high, what are their proposals for bringing down those prices? We have not heard a single word about that this afternoon. Our system is providing the best level of food prices in Europe and the proposals and policies of the party opposite would put prices up and not down.
Let us consider the experience with food prices in Europe—I shall now have a few figures of my own. Between 1952 and 1963 our food prices went up by 33 per cent., about the same as in Italy and the Netherlands, more than in West Germany, but less than in Denmark, France and Sweden. As we got away from the days of Socialism, the record got much better. Between 1956 and 1963, food prices in the United Kingdom went up by 11½ per cent. They went up by 17 per cent. in Germany, 15 per cent. in Italy, 22 per cent. in the Netherlands, 23 per cent. in Denmark, 47 per cent. in France, and in Sweden—which has so long enjoyed the benefits of a Socialist Government—by 34 per cent. This, surely, is conclusive proof, if proof be wanted, that our system of food importing and our agricultural support system are producing food at prices which compare extremely well with those of Europe.
The only suggestion of the party opposite is a return to bulk buying. Although we have heard nothing about bulk buying today, it sometimes bulks large in the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition. If a return to bulk buying is such a good thing and will

bring cheaper meat and cheaper farm produce, why did we not hear about it? The reason, as we all know, is that bulk buying was hardly a success in the days immediately after the war, in the days of inconvertibility—at a time when world markets were easy and when food was not short in the rest of the world—and a return to it now would result in paying more for our food.
It is extraordinary that the party which raises this issue of the cost of living and which attacks us and which says that we should do better about the cost of living should not have said a single word about how to improve on the present level of food prices. On the whole, that is a confession of the wholly bankrupt nature of the Opposition in this respect—

Mr. George Brown: I am—[Interruption.]—we expect that kind of rudeness from hon. Members opposite. I am not quite clear whether the right hon. Gentleman is making the case that prices have not increased or that they have increased for good reasons and cannot be brought down. Which of those two points is he making?

Mr. Maudling: The point I am making is that our system of food prices and agricultural support has meant that food prices in this country have risen very little in the last few years compared with those of our European competitors and that to introduce the type of system which hon. Members opposite have in mind would make them go up rather than bring them down. I think that that is a fair argument. I am sorry if I was impolite to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not mean to be, but he interrupted me in the course of a sentence.

Mr. Brown: I shall get much more than that tonight.

Mr. Maudling: That remains to be seen.
Having dealt with food prices, a major item in the index, I now turn to housing prices about which, again, the hon. Gentleman had very little to say, although his party often has. It is quite clear that the price of housing is a matter of considerable concern and it is equally clear, I accept, that among the items in the cost of living which have risen the price of housing has been one of the largest. But we must get the argument


right in this question of housing costs and land costs.
It is the price of houses which affects the price of land rather than the other way round. The price a developer will pay for land depends upon the price at which he can sell the houses when he has built them. That is something we must never forget. The price of housing determines the price which may be paid for the land. Of course there may be special features in certain areas where there is a particularly high demand for houses. That special situation can arise in a special locality, but in general it is the balance of supply and demand which affects the level of housing prices.
I cannot see how the party opposite, or anyone else, can make an assault on the level of housing costs other than in one of two ways—either by stopping people who are trying to get houses, or by getting more houses built. I take it that there is no proposal from the party opposite to impose a licensing system, for example, on private house building. I take it that the party opposite is not proposing and does not wish to reduce the demand for housing by preventing people who want to buy their houses in present circumstances from doing so.
If that is so, the only practical way of getting housing prices down is by building more houses and so generally increasing the supply. This is where I can make some interesting figures available to the House. I will start by recalling that in our last debate on the cost of living the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that it would be irresponsible to aim at a target of more than 800,000 houses—

Hon. Members: 400,000.

Mr. Maudling: I meant to say 400,000; these things do get inflated. I think that 400,000 houses is regarded by hon. Members opposite as the maximum target.
The total number under construction at the moment, public and private together, is more than 421,000, which compares with a corresponding figure of 226,000 at the end of 1951. The number of houses started in Great Britain, public and private, in the first half of this year was 214,000. Hon. Members opposite think that 400,000 is the maximum which

can be achieved. It is right for them to aim at such a target, and it is clear that they are not proposing to build more houses. But unless more houses are built against current demand, which is very strong in this modern affluent Britain, they will not find a way of bringing down the price of housing.
I am surprised that once again there was no mention in the hon. Gentleman's speech of Labour Party policy for dealing with land prices or house prices.

Mr. Monslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this aspect of land prices? I will give him one example. In Bishop's Stortford 170 acres with a market value of £42,500 became worth £1,700,000 when the land became available for residential purposes. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. Maudling: The price of land varies with the price at which houses can be sold by the developer. What are the proposals of the party opposite for bringing down the price of land other than by making more land available, and for bringing down the price of houses other than by making more houses available by building them? Their ideas for a land commission seem to have been riddled in the last few weeks and months. That is why, no doubt, we heard very little about them this afternoon.
I am taking the increases in prices one by one deliberately to deal as factually as I can with what I thought was the subject of the debate this afternoon. The big items are rates, fuel and light, and transport. The House is aware of the difficulties of the rating problem. The rising burden of rates is due to the rapidly increasing total expenditure on public services. In a public speech the other day I quoted some figures which showed the immense range of rating assessments in this country. Whereas the average is about £32, one gets averages in some areas varying from £11 to £99.
It is clear that any revision of the rating structure, or of the financial relations between local and central Government, needs to be based on the studies of the Allen Committee; needs to be based on a clear assessment of where the burden really falls, because the simple transfer of a block of expenditure from rates to taxes, as I believe some people, and possibly the Opposition,


have proposed, might result in an overall relief on ratepayers of a very small amount—quite inadequate for those most affected—while at the same time transferring a very large burden to the taxpayer. I must emphasise again that taxation, be it direct or indirect, falls on the cost of living in one form or another.
Fuel and light prices have risen. I think that the hon. Gentleman called attention to the financial targets which we have given the power industries. These targets are essential if we are to get realism and maximum efficiency in the conduct of these nationalised industries. So far as I know, the establishment of these targets of earnings on assets are accepted by those in charge of the industries as a challenge which they have to meet as an incentive to economy, and from the point of view of the public, the cost of living, and total expenditure, it is essential to have targets of this kind if we are to avoid the vast misuse of capital which could take place if nationalised industries were based on other than proper commercial propositions.
The other big item is transport. The big items are the railways and bus fares, particularly in London. The railways are not earning a profit. They are, thanks to Dr. Beeching's vigorous steps, reducing bit by bit the burden on the taxpayer, and reducing bit by bit the burden of the railways on the cost of living. They are making this progress and at the same time they are paying substantially increased wages, as are London Transport. In these circumstances, it is not surpising that the effect of these moves, the effect of these wage increases, the effect of trying to eliminate this deficit, should be felt in the charges made by the transport systems, both rail and road.

Mr. Harold Davies: I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to make such a broad generalisation. He said that the railways, by Dr. Beeching's plan, are helping to keep down the cost of living. Surely he knows that even before the war in London a survey was made of the result of the stoppages of transport in London with the internal combustion engine. It cost £30 million a year. What does the congestion on

the roads cost the taxpayer in terms of lost petrol, and lost dollars? It costs millions of pounds because that Government have no plan for transport at the moment.

Mr. Maudling: By increasing efficiency and eliminating wasteful operations Dr. Beeching's plan is reducing the deficit of the railways which otherwise falls on the taxpayer and on the cost of living. With that there cannot be any demur.
I turn from those particular items to the general factors which affect prices, and I want to end my speech by dealing with the broad factors to which the hon. Gentleman occasionally referred.
It is obvious that the major problem is to ensure that the load we put on the economy is not higher than production can carrry. This is a commonplace, and is accepted by both sides. The pressure of demand on resources is what pushes up prices. Therefore, we must examine our respective policies in the light of the effect that they will have on the demand for resources, and the effect that they will have on the increase in efficiency and production, and that is what I want to do now.
I deal first with Government expenditure, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. This is one of the largest features. The pressure of Government expenditure on the economy is a very serious problem. It is bound to affect prices, and the effect of taxation, both direct and indirect, is bound to be felt throughout the economy. As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House today, our programme of expenditure is a large and ambitious one. The White Paper of last year showed an average increase of about 4·1 per cent. a year in public expenditure, and since then it is fair to admit that the pressure has risen.
I have never disguised from the House, or from the country, that to finance this expenditure, which I am convinced the country wants and needs, we will need additional tax revenue, but this will be tolerable if public expenditure is kept within bounds, and if savings are maintained. My fear is that under the policies of the party opposite neither condition will be fulfilled. Public expenditure will not be kept under control and savings will be undermined.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East fights a noble but losing battle against his colleagues in the matter of public expenditure. He honestly and fairly admits that the commitments that we have undertaken are all that can be undertaken by a responsible Government. As I say, it is a losing battle. He received the coup de grâce the other night on television from the Leader of the Opposition who talked about the first 100 days and the great immediate drive. Incidentally, we heard this afternoon that nothing more could be done until they got production up to 5 per cent. or to 6 per cent. but on television last week it was the first 100 days, an immediate drive on pensions, housing, education—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poor stuff."] I have heard a certain amount of party propaganda from the other side and I should be entitled to make a little now.
I want to know, because the country ought to know, whether the policy of the party opposite is to contain Government expenditure in the limits that we have set, or whether they intend an immediate drive on pensions, housing, and education, which to every listener can mean nothing other than higher pensions, more houses, more schools, and therefore more expenditure. What is the policy of the party opposite? They cannot get away with trying to do both. If they attempt to carry out a fraction of the promises that they are making, the effect on the cost of living will be serious.
The same is true of savings. There has been a dramatic increase in the level of savings in the last 10 to 12 years. We heard nothing about that this afternoon, and, as the House is aware, any decline in the level of savings means an increase in the level of taxes to counter-balance it. We have seen savings rise many times over under a Conservative Government. I cannot believe that the same will happen—in fact I think that the opposite will happen—if there is a Labour Government, with their general attitude on the taxation of capital, on a gifts tax, and a wealth tax. All these proposals, which are inimical to savings, are bound to push up the cost of living.
Another factor is interest rates. I am troubled about what the party opposite mean by interest rates. They once talked about giving loans to local authorities for

housing purposes at specially subsidised rates. This was swept aside by the Leader of the Opposition in his letter to the Building Societies Association when he said that he was
not … proposing to introduce through the public sector some special or discriminatory form of subsidised loans for house purchase".
Another example of driving the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) under the rug.
One is driven back to the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that, if the party opposite intends anything at all in interest rates, it intends to drive interest rates down by rigging the gilt-edged market. The only way in which the party opposite can drive long-term interest rates down is by driving the gilt-edged market up, and we remember what happened to the gilt-edged market in those days.
I heard the hon. Member make some comment about the value of investment in gilt-edged securities. Perhaps he will recall what happened when Daltons came out in early 1947. In less than five years they had fallen by 35 points, to 65. These are the consequences of attempting to rig the market in order to create artificially low interest rates. Before the right hon. Gentleman commits himself and his party to this sort of policy he should consider the consequences of becoming an island of artificially low interest rates in a world of high interest rates. An island of inflation in a non-inflationary world is a very dangerous thing for this country to be.
Finally, I come to the question of increasing production and productivity. I can summarise our policies in this respect under a few heads. I have tried in the last two Budgets—and especially the Budget of 1963—to encourage productivity by encouraging education and providing the funds for it; encouraging training and retraining, for which we have an ambitious programme, and particularly for bringing in resources to areas of relatively high unemployment. We have ambitious schemes for tax depreciation, and we have standard grants, and so on. In all these ways we have been increasing the efficient use of our national money.
Our other main task has been to stimulate investment in industry, not only for the expansion of industry but also in labour saving and cost cutting—because if prices are to be brought down it will come more than anything else from the


installation of machinery and equipment and the adoption of methods which will lower costs, with the consequent passing on of the benefit to the public. Here again, there is a distinction between our policy and the policy of the party opposite—between our policy of encouraging investment by expanding capital allowances and the policy of the party opposite, which talks about ruthless discrimination between one taxpayer and another and which adopts strange devices to encourage investment, such as a differential Profits Tax, about which the Leader of the Opposition was at one time so keen, although I notice that that one has now been lost as well.
The Leader of the Opposition has been in the habit of putting his colleagues' bright ideas to bed. Now I am happy to see that one of his colleagues has done the same to him. In a recent number of the Investors' Chronicle dealing with the question of a differential Profits Tax, it was not so much a case of "diamond cut diamond" as "Diamond cut Wilson". Once again we have an example of complete confusion on the part of the party opposite. The proposals that they are putting forward, in so far as they are in any way detailed, are either wholly self-contradictory, or will have an effect opposite to that which is intended, and are bound to push up the cost of living.
I shall not say much about an incomes policy, because the House has heard me often on the subject. I do not apologise for this. I am sure that the House will agree that an incomes policy, with all that it means, is fundamental to tackling the question of rising prices. I am told that of the increase in prices in the last year or two about two-thirds came from increased wages and salaries and about one-eighth from increased profits. Clearly, both for wages and salaries on the one hand and for profits on the other, the principle must be the same. It must be our endeavour to keep them in line with the increase in productivity, because without that there is no chance of keeping our domestic costs at such a level as to restrain a rise in prices.
With a General Election coming up I hope that the question of an incomes policy and the need for it will not become a matter of controversy between the parties. I do not think that it will, because

both parties are agreed that an incomes policy is essential. We may disagree about the way of creating it, but I know that the broad policy of keeping incomes on the right lines and dealing fairly with the various categories of receiver, if I may so put it, is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I hope that the next Government—and I trust that it will be a Conservative Government—will be able to find a solution to this problem. It is a national problem, and the party opposite will finally have to tackle it as a national problem and a national necessity.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: So far the hon. Member has said that prices have risen. He obviously accepts that. He has offered no measures designed to see that they do not rise further, but he has asked the Opposition what they will do. I hope that he will not conclude his speech without telling us his proposals to stop rising prices.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member cannot have been listening to what I have been saying.

Mr. Mendelson: I have been listening very carefully.

Mr. Maudling: What the hon. Member has just said was a fair description of his hon. Friend's speech. For almost all my speech I have concentrated on the problem of prices, which is the problem mentioned in the Motion and in the Amendment. I have dealt with prices generally and with important individual elements—food, housing, fuel, lighting, transport and rates. I have dealt with them first after getting the facts straight, which is necessary in order to make the actual movement of prices clear to people, and after cutting away some of the fog of special pleading that is hung over the question by hon. Members opposite. I have tried to put things in a proper perspective.
I have made it clear that rising prices must be a matter of concern to any Government—both from the internal and the external aspect. I have made it clear that the way in which prices may be contained is the exact opposite of the proposals of the Party opposite. I have said that it can be done only by holding public expenditure, and not falling for


the silly bribes which the party opposite is dragging around the electorate. It can be done only by encouraging production, and not trying to drive interest rates down to an unnatural level. It can be done by encouraging the proper use of labour resources, investment in new machinery, and by competition.
These are the ways in which we have been tackling the problem, which I believe bear favourable comparison not only with the methods of the party opposite but also with those of other countries. These are the lines that I have taken in the matter. I believe that socially and factually our policy will compete favourably with that of the party opposite, and on that I rest my case.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I have always had a great respect for the economic ability of the Chancellor and for his capacity to debate, but today he has taken his speech right out of court by not sticking to the facts. By misrepresenting the facts, he has discounted the whole of his speech. Every bit of it must now be suspect. He used the year 1951 dishonestly for the purpose of comparison. He knows that two things occurred in 1951 which make that year an improper one to take for any purpose of comparison.
First, there was the crisis that arose out of the Korean war and, secondly, the fact that the Labour Government then had to buy in stocks of goods in case a world war broke out. They had to buy in to the extent of £600 million above the necessary imports. The Chancellor was quite dishonest in ignoring that fact, and the fact that the Government which came in in the following year inherited £600 million in stocks that they did not need to buy and when prices came down they benefited.
When he compares Conservative Government with Labour Government he must discount these matters in coming to any calculations on the benefits that may have been derived from Conservative Governments. He knows far better than that, and the fact that he has chosen to use such tricks in his speech discredits all his facts. It is obvious, therefore, that nobody can trust any of the figures and facts used by the right hon. Gentleman, so it is rather useless trying to discuss

them. The Chancellor went on to say that the Labour Party's programme represented the building of houses, hospitals and all sorts of things in 100 days.

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman implied that; but it is nonsense. He knows that buildings take time, not only to build but to begin to build. Building programmes for hospitals and universities often take years to formulate. He even knows that his own party's building programme is in many respects beyond the capacity of the building trade. I suppose that it is only window dressing for the coming General Election.
Whenever an election has been coming the Conservative Party have immediately launched enormous programmes, merely to create difficulties for the party coming into office. Then they are able to say, after the election—as they will say to the next Labour Government—"That was in our programme" and "The Labour Party is merely carrying out what we began". There is practically nothing that a Labour Government could do about which the Conservatives could not say "We started that" simply because they have made promises about virtually everything in the last few years.
This all goes to prove that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were humbug. Building depends on the building trade; how soon its output can be increased, the capacity to increase the goods used in the industry, and so on. All these things must be tackled before more buildings can be erected. It is not enough to increase the number of building trade workers and say that more buildings can, therefore, be built. The whole of industry is geared to produce a certain amount of, say, glass, a given number of bricks, a certain amount of stone and the iron and other materials used in building. It is not easy to increase the production of these goods without there being a great deal of planning.
The Chancellor cannot deny that he was dishonest in the facts he gave. He knew them to be untrue and was, therefore, being dishonest. He made a dishonest comparison between 1951 and now, and he knows as well as I do that when he made that comparison he was making a false and a dishonest one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. So long as the right hon. Gentleman restricts himself to a general use of the word "dishonest" it may be legitimate, but to call an hon. Member or a right hon. Member dishonest himself is not in order.

Mr. Woodburn: If I implied that the right hon. Gentleman was personally dishonest, I withdraw that unreservedly. I am saying that his comparison was dishonest.

Mr. Maudling: I know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman means, but, with respect, he is completely wrong. I did not say anything that I did not know and I did not say anything which I cannot prove. The comparison I made with 1951 was made as a result of his party's Motion, the wording of it and the speech which was made from the Opposition Front Bench. I was pointing out that, the housing industry being fully occupied, it was wrong for the party opposite to make tremendous claims about the building of even more houses.

Mr. Woodburn: I was not referring specifically to the question of housebuilding in 1951; just to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman made comparisons with that year which he should not have made. For example, he referred to the cost of living in 1951 and pointed out how it had risen during the term of the Labour Government. He completely ignored the vital facts. The right hon. Gentleman, who is an able economist, made some dishonest comparisons.
There can be no doubt that the problems facing the country are great. No hon. Member, on either side of the House, is suggesting that increasing productivity does not carry with it the risk of inflation. The Conservative Government have deliberately inflated the currency on several occasions, just prior to a General Election, and they are certainly taking the risk of doing that now. Just prior to the 1959 election the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a free rein on hire purchase, one of the fastest ways of stimulating purchasing. He encouraged the banks to give personal loans in a way never known before. The result was that the hire-purchase companies lost about £60 million—and, although the Conservatives

regarded that as part of the cost for winning the election, that money was lost as a result of the hire-purchase companies taking risks to return the Conservatives to power.
If the Chancellor now suggests that currency is not being inflated, he must be the only person to believe that. It is being inflated and it is obvious that everything is going up in price. More wages are being sought, and the right hon. Gentleman is being less than fair, because nobody has yet discovered whether wages chase prices or prices chase wages. One method of dealing with this problem is to reduce expenditure on goods at home. When we were in power we had to face this difficulty, because at that time the motor car firms were prepared to sell all their cars at home and none abroad. We had to press and persuade them to export more vehicles and sell less at home so that the industry could pay for the steel it was using.
It is obvious that there must be a balance between the amount of goods consumed at home and those exported, bearing in mind our imports. The purchase of new motor cars in Britain has reached the point when the Government have an important problem to solve. Not only are we bringing on to our roads more vehicles than the roads can carry, we are having to spend vast sums to improve the roads and make more room for the extra vehicles. Common sense suggests that many people are buying new cars when their old ones are not necessarily worn out. There is a lot for saying that older cars should be run for an extra year or so. I do not want to give the impression that I would prevent people from having new cars. Nevertheless, we must do something to increase our exports.
The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development is setting up commissions to develop the exporting of goods, and I gather that one of the principal ones will be concerned with the export of whisky. From my travels abroad I have long realised the popularity of our whisky in other countries. Its consumption abroad has been rising steadily and it is without doubt an excellent export. It does not involve a great deal of labour in its manufacture, nature doing a great


deal of the work in terms of fermentation and so on. Whisky production is a profitable business and, although the State does not get the lot, it collects a large amount. From the point of view of the Chancellor and the whisky industry, I can understand the enthusiasm for developing the export of this commodity.
The Chancellor did not say very much—and I have particularly in mind the proposed exports council—about exports to E.F.T.A. countries. Although those countries have been increasing trade with one another, they have not been buying very much from Britain recently and we are certainly not getting our share of their imports. As the right hon. Gentleman must know, the Scottish Council concerned with the development of industry and exports has been doing a great deal to make inroads into the E.F.T.A. countries from the exports point of view. I think that its efforts will be relatively successful. It has also been negotiating with Canada and the United States. I mention this because I would like to know whether the proposed new Council will either duplicate the efforts of the Scottish Council or compete with it, or co-operate with it, because there can be no doubt that it would be a good idea if more money were placed at the disposal of the Scottish Council, which has had considerable success.
It should also be remembered that there will be a great industrial fair in Scotland in the autumn. I hope that the Government will stimulate interest in that event, because the more people from abroad who can be attracted to it, the more our exports will be increased. I am not pushing the Scottish Nationalist Party in this connection, but a very important factor in industry is that there are 20 million Scots abroad who, whether or not they ever come back, have a nostalgia for their native country. Even from the purely business point of view there is no question that it is advantageous to use all this friendship that exists in other countries. The Scottish Council is able to do that in the United States and Canada, and in other countries, and I hope that something more can be done in that direction.
If we want to increase out exports we must try to reduce wasteful expenditure, of which there is a good deal. More and

more people are being employed in gambling shops, casinos, and the like, as a result of recent Government legislation, and there is a great deal of other labour wasted on unnecessary work. A lot of that could be done away with to the advantage of really vital work.
Some inquiry will eventually have to be made into the distribution of rates between Government and local authorities. A wholesale investigation into the rating system is becoming urgently necessary. In Scotland, during their years of office, the Government have increased this financial load on local authorities from about £37 million to over £100 million. This expenditure is an element in the cost of living, and something will have to be done to adjust what is called the "burden", although I do not myself believe that rates are a burden or that taxation is a burden.
I believe that people get very good value for their rates and taxes, and if we eliminate the cost of war and of preparation for war it will be seen that everything spent by the Government—even by a Conservative Government—and by local authorities represents very good value for money for those who receive the services. If these same services were performed by any other agency the cost of living would rise much more rapidly. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will see whether something can be done about this problem of rates.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer wound up by talking about national expenditure rising. We can reduce a lot of national expenditure if we make people pay privately. All we then do is to shift it from ourselves to the public. The reason why the Government spend our money is that they are doing it, I hope, more economically than otherwise would be the case. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not say that during the last 13 years the Government have been wasting money, and if he says that the money has been spent wisely it means that the public have had a better advantage than they otherwise would have done.
The National Health Service is an example. Our expenditure on the Health Service is less than that of any other country. Drugs and everything else cost more in the United States and in nearly every other country. In other words,


people get a better service here for less money than they would get anywhere else. Yet there is a great deal of nonsense talked about burdens; people are buying at wholesale prices and getting these drugs and services more cheaply than they would outside the service, but it is very difficult to make this clear.
People do not like paying taxes. One of the sad things of life is that people will rather pay more on cigarettes, beer and whisky and pay a much smaller Income Tax, with the result that much taxation has to be imposed by indirect rather than by direct means. We have to express our thanks to those who smoke and drink for their great generosity in making such a valuable contribution to the upkeep of the country and the national expenditure.
It is a pity, as I say, that so much of it has to go on war and the preparation of war, but we hope that by the time the next Government come in the world situation will have so altered that even that expenditure may be reduced and the saving put to better purpose.

6.25 p.m.

Sir Alexander Spearman: We have had a stirring electioneering speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It will give great pleasure to all those who for a long time have been quite determined to vote Labour; I am not sure that it will give much encouragement to those who, in recent months, have been becoming increasingly doubtful about voting Labour.
I want to try to examine as objectively as I can the cause of prices rising, and what can be done about it. We are all committed to a full employment policy. We all agree that it would be quite intolerable to return to the inter-war years of mass unemployment. That means that spending must be up to just below full capacity to produce. A wise and strong Government have to regulate the economy so that there is neither a glut of goods—and, therefore, unemployment—or, on the other hand, excess demand. But for this full employment, as for most other good things, we have to pay a price.
One price, as I see it, is that there must be unpopular and inconvenient

variations in taxation rates and interest rates. No Government—and I certainly do not claim a Conservative Government to be an exception—composed of men is infallible. In addition, many things occur that are quite outside Government control—are external—so that there must be a constant varying of the pace of the economy.
A price we also have to pay is the probability of a slight degree of inflation. It is no coincidence that it is in America, where unemployment is much higher, and in Germany, where there have always been reserves of labour, that price rises have been much the smallest and the inflationary pressures much the least.
An unwise and weak Government could bring about an absolutely disastrous inflation with the full employment policy. I recognise that during the last 12 years there has been a material rise in prices—and a rather more severe rise in the previous six years. That has not, I think, cause a great deal of hardship, because it has been largely offset by a much greater rise in wages, pensions and benefits, but I accept at once that there has been some suffering, though nothing on the scale of what has happened in the past in Europe.
Those of us who visited Germany just after the war know the appalling suffering by starvation that existed there. It was only cured when the present chairman of I.C.I., Mr. Paul Chambers, brought in currency reform. The conditions in Germany then are well illustrated by the story of the unhappy shopkeeper whose job was selling nails. He was very pleased at the beginning of the inflation when one day he found that he had sold every nail in the shop. He was not so pleased next day when he found that with the proceeds he could only buy back half as much stock, but when he sold that stock again at a satisfactory profit he cheered up. But every time he sold his stock he was able to buy fewer and fewer nails in replacement. The story goes that he finally ended up with only one nail, which he used when he hanged himself.
The late Mr. Hugh Gaitskell once warned us against complacency, and said that that sort of inflation could happen here. We should bear that


warning in mind. Inflation is serious, either if it is here and only here and not in other countries, so that we have a balance-of-payments crisis, or if it degenerates into galloping inflation, as it could do. Inflation is a very insidious disease, because in its first stages it is so very agreeable. As demand rises, so do wages—and so does employment. But production rises also, so that prices are not at first much affected.
Therefore, the workers are pleased. They get more work and more wages. Employers are pleased. They get more profits, and the consumers are not much hurt. In the second stage, inevitably, incomes not only go on rising, but they rise at a much faster rate, but production cannot go on rising at faster rates when the reserves capacity is used up; then comes the crisis.
It is absolutely vital, therefore, that a Government should regulate spending so that it is in balance with production. I believe that this is the most important and most difficult thing that a Chancellor has to do. It is the most difficult because he almost always has to act before it appears obviously necessary. He has to do unpopular things before it is recognised that he needs to do them and because nearly always, for some reason or another, his advisers over-estimate the effect of restrictive measures and under-estimate the effect of expansive measures.
During the debate on the Finance Bill, Opposition Front Bench speakers, as was put by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20th April, all took the view that the burden must be shifted from the consumers on to profits. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), on 16th April, spelt it out very clearly when he said:
I say emphatically that in present circumstances he should have raised not consumer taxes, but profits taxes."—[Official Report, 16th April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 615.]
When right hon. and hon. Members opposite say that sort of thing, I wonder whether they begin to understand the economic situation. Increasing Profits Tax can have no possible effect on the economic situation in the current year. It cannot possibly cut down expenditure or regulate the economy so as to have spending in balance. It can only have

an effect on spending at a later stage if it means reduction of dividends, but more probably it will mean reduction in industrial investment, and surely none of us wants to see that.
Hon. Members opposite sometimes seem to be living in the past. In the days of Gladstonian finance it was believed that the job of the Chancellor was confined to raising enough money to pay the bills. They seem to have the illusion that wealth consists of money and stocks and shares and that a fair and wise Government could redistribute all that and make everyone happy. But wealth consists of the production of goods, and it is on production that the whole of this debate should hang.
Are the Opposition really capable of foreseeing what would happen so as to be able to plan the economy? When the 1963 Budget was made, some people thought that the Chancellor did exactly right, and some thought that taking into account what he had given away outside the Budget he had given away a bit too much. I do not think that any responsible person now thinks that my right hon. Friend gave away too little, but let us look at what was said in that debate.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, on 4th April, 1963:
In my view, the Chancellor has been too cautious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 642.]
Even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who, some of us think, is perhaps the brightest jewel in a rather moderate crown—and I hope that he will not think that compliment too damaging—said, on 8th April, 1963:
… I remain unconvinced that the Budget has done as much as it should have done this year in the circumstances that confront us …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 999.]
Finally, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North said, on 9th April, 1963:
… on his own showing, the Chancellor is budgeting for continued unemployment …
At that time, the unemployment figure was 3·5 per cent. In the next quarter it was 2·4 per cent., in the next 2·1 per cent. and now it is 1·4 per cent. It was, therefore, not a wise prophecy.
Later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
This timid Budget, I believe, is not enough to give us real steady expansion …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 1208–14.]
Production was running then at 113. In the next quarter it was 118, in the next 120 and in the next 124, and now it is 126. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman who made that statement could be given good marks for accuracy and foresight.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I am most interested to hear that production is now 126. How long has it been standing at that figure?

Sir A. Spearman: I should have thought for about two or three months. We must look at the Monthly Digest of Statistics.

Mr. Duffy: Is the hon. Gentleman encouraged by this?

Sir A. Spearman: Yes, because I think that we can push up production quickly when we have great reserves of capacity. It is often said by hon. Members opposite that the Government pushed up production in 1959 to win the election, but they will find that that was not in 1959. It was in 1960 that there was the exceptional increase.
We have to keep down incomes or raise production to get the balance. In this, at any rate, I shall have everyone with me when I say that the right course is to secure a balance not by pushing incomes down, but by pushing production up; and I believe that to push up production savings are essential. If everything is spent on social services and on consumption there can be no resources for new capital and new plant. Shall we get those savings under a Labour Government? We certainly did not get personal savings in 1951, and the proposals for taxing wealth cannot encourage savings. I find it hard to understand what hon. Members opposite mean. They seem to say, "To save is good, but to have saved is wrong."

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When did any of my right hon. or hon. Friends say that?

Sir A. Spearman: Time and again from the other side of the House we

have had proposals for taxes on the accumulation of savings.

Mr. Woodburn: No.

Sir A. Spearman: We have been told that savings must be taxed more and more, but I am sure that the greater the accumulation of savings the stronger our position will be.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member seems to think that savings and profits are the same thing and that taxation of profits is taxation of savings, but profits are not necessarily saved. They are often spent, and spent wastefully. Surely the hon. Member will not suggest that wasteful expenditure should not be taxed.

Sir A. Spearman: I am talking of many reports lately that the Opposition, if they came to power, would tax savings and wealth.

Mr. Woodburn: No.

Sir A. Spearman: I am glad to hear an ex-Minister repudiate that. We must have a high rate of production, and to have it we must have competition. In dictator countries—

Mr. Woodburn: I must put this matter right. It is assumed that wealth and savings are the same thing. But some people make wealth from speculation or by gambling, by intelligence, or by rigging the markets. Many people have lost their savings with Mr. Bloom. These things do not necessarily come about because of hard work. Wealth and savings are not synonymous, any more than savings and profits are synonymous.

Sir A. Spearman: All I said is that a general tax on wealth, on what people have saved in the past, is likely to discourage savings.
As I was saying, there must be competition. In a dictatorship country the authorities are the driving force and they try to get efficiency by police methods, but in a democratic country competition and the incentive of reward must be the driving force. If there is enough competition, managements must, in the national interest, make the best use of their resources or release them to other people who will do so. If there is enough competition employers cannot put the cost of inefficiency or of extra wages on to the price of the goods they


sell because they will not sell them for higher prices. They have got to do it by being more efficient or cutting profit margins.
Do the Opposition really want competition? They pay lip-service to it, but I suspect from so many of their speeches that, in fact, they would bolster up inefficient and declining industries. They would subsidise or direct industries to areas where production would be lower and less economic in the cause of saving temporary hardship.

Mr. Duffy: Am I to take it that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the attraction or direction of new industry to Whitby? I know Whitby as well as the hon. Gentleman does. He cannot have it both ways.

Sir A. Spearman: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows Whitby as well as I do. If he does, he will know that it may very well benefit from a vast potash development, involving an expenditure of £15 million, which can be produced in Whitby and nowhere else.

Mr. Duffy: It has got to retain its railway as well.

Sir A. Spearman: As I see it, there are only two alternatives to regulating the expenditure of a country to be in balance with production. One is the impossible situation of a catastrophic inflation, which is unthinkable, and the other is price control by decree. Price control means rationing. Rationing means black markets and all the unfairness of black markets. It means inefficiency and waste, because things are produced which are not wanted. No Government can foresee what a dynamic society will want in the future. Therefore, in such circumstances a Labour Government would try to make people buy not what they wanted, but what the Government thought they ought to want. Previous speeches from the benches opposite have had a certain amount of electioneering in them.
Everyone on this side of the House knows, and I suspect that a great many on the other side rather think, that there has been a big swing to the Conservative Party during the last few months.

Mr. A. Lewis: Faversham!

Sir A. Spearman: There are two reasons for this. One is that there is a growing realisation amongst the voters as a whole that we cannot maintain, let alone raise, the standard of living unless we can push up production. The other is a growing realisation that under a Labour Government, for reasons that I have given, we shall not get higher production.

6.43 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: After listening to the speeches from the Government benches, I begin to wonder what sort of world we are living in. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) asked, "Do the Opposition really want competition?" He said, "If there is enough competition in this country, managements will make the best of their opportunities."
The other day we had a debate on monopolies. We live in a country where more and more commodities are produced by monopolies and fewer are produced in competition. One only needs to read an article on monopoly in the New Statesman about a fortnight ago to realise that this is true. The article referred to the preserves of Unilever. If a woman buys toothpaste for the family she finds it is made by Unilever. She buys fat, margarine and other commodities with a fat content—Unilever; sausages, ice cream for the children—Unilever; MacFisheries—Unilever. Then hon. Members opposite have the cheek to tell us that if we had more competition we would have fewer increases in prices and that we would live in a different and better world.
We on these benches have been asked to do some straight talking. The Government must do some straight talking, too. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to expenditure on social services, the inference being that if we have another Tory Government we must spend less on the social services and make people pay more—

Sir A. Spearman: I said that if all the resources of the country were spent on consumption goods and social services, we would not have the resources for expanding industry with new factories and plant.

Mrs. Slater: I am quoting what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that if everything was spent on the social services there would be little left for expansion. What I want is a straight answer. Do the Government imply that if they were returned—which they will not be—there would be less spent on the social services or, as the doctors have suggested at their conference, they would make people pay more for the social services?

Sir A. Spearman: If the hon. Lady will look at the White Paper published by the Government a few months ago, she will see that they contemplate spending in the next four years £2,000 million more on the social services.

Mrs. Slater: I have no faith in what the Government contemplate in their White Papers. We have had several examples of this—their programmes for hospitals, roads and all kinds of expansion. What they contemplate and what they have shown they can do are two different things. I have very little faith in Tory contemplation.
The Chancellor spoke of the Government, through Dr. Beeching, having rationalised transport and having reduced expenditure on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) mentioned Whitby to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. I have an idea that hon. Members representing rural areas and seaside towns in particular, like Skegness, have been pressing the Government not to allow the Beeching plan to be implemented. On the question of what the Government call uneconomic railway transport, during the last few weeks road hauliers have announced that they are going to increase their prices by 10 per cent. from 1st August. The reduction in the amount of rail freight carried has meant an increase in road freights. That will have an effect on the price of every bit of food and coal produced, for the Beeching plan has cut down a number of coal depôts and has pushed the business on to the roads. It has put 13 miles on to every journey. Who is going to pay? It will be the consumer every time. When the road haulage rates go up by 10 per cent. on 1st August, the road hauliers can regard that as a present from the Government through Dr. Beeching. Freight which ought to be

carried by the railways is being pushed on to the roads.
In their Amendment the Government say that they welcome "the greater stability in prices of recent years". Are we living in 1964 or are we living in a fool's paradise when the housewife every week finds that the price of some article or other has gone up? This Amendment will be carried, of course, because the Government have the weight of numbers. Housewives will read in tomorrow's newspapers that prices have not gone up and that there has been price stability in recent years.
What are the facts? Since August last year, the Index of Retail Prices has risen ten successive times. In the first half of this year, the total cost of living rose by more than the total rises of the two previous years. Where is the stability of prices in that? Are the Government trying to "kid" the people of this country? At the time of our last cost-of-living debate in February, the index stood at 104·7. Since then it has gone up 2·7 points.
The Chancellor tells us that things are all right and the index always rises in June. If we had asked Questions about it, the Government would have told us that in the summer months the cost of living would come down because lettuce, fruit and vegetables would be cheaper. Now, when they want an excuse, they tell us that the price of meat has gone up. In fact, the cost of almost everything has gone up.
I take a short quotation from a newspaper which is not by any stretch of the imagination a Socialist publication. On 11th of this month, the Financial Times had a banner headline
Second wave of retail food prices raised
and the article said that
Britain's £2,000 million-a-year retail food trade, which was swamped by a flood of small increases for over 1,000 products in January and February, is now coping with a second wave of higher prices".
Let us look at some of the prices. When a woman went for her detergent last week, she found that all detergents had gone up in price by 1d. That may not sound much, but, of course, it is a good deal if one has a family and one has to do a good bit of washing. This is the second time that detergents have gone up in three months. What does the industry do? It


advertises and it tries to persuade women that prices have not gone up. All sorts of gimmicks are used—a plastic flower with every packet, for instance, a daffodil in the spring and a rose just now, or, perhaps, there is a free coupon which can be sent off for a half a dozen glasses at a reduced price, though by the time that the housewife gets the glasses she could have bought them for the same money in any shop, including Woolworths.

Mr. John Stonehouse: And cheaper at the co-op.

Mrs. Slater: Yes, cheaper at the co-op. Other gimmicks are for getting a refrigerator at a reduced price. At Christmas time one firm will offer a coupon so that the housewife can buy a pair of scales at a reduced price, but, of course, if the housewife looked around she would find that she could get similar scales in the shops for the same price. Then there is all the business about "Mr. Omo" or "Mr. Tide" calling tomorrow and if the housewife can say the right words she can have £5. The price rises are so often disguised by all manner of devices of this kind.
The week before last, Lever Brothers put up the price of toilet soaps. We like to think that cleanliness is next to godliness, but the price of toilet soap is by no means low today. We have all these gimmicks, but toilet soap is never cheap.
Within the last 12 days, 25 manufacturers selling branded goods through the grocery trade have revised their retail prices. The prices have gone up on jams, on Chivers marmalade, on Crosse & Blackwell baked beans, and even on corned beef. The price of custard powders, of biscuits and even of chocolates has risen. Nearly all frozen foods have been increased in price over the past few days. To counteract some of these price increases one big firm, Westons, for instance, has tried to disguise what has happened to a large extent by special offers of lines like tea, soap powders and margarine. Only one commodity has come down in price during the past few weeks, and that is "instant" coffee. I have a list here of prices which have gone up during the past few months, all since our last cost-of-living debate.
Every day, the ordinary housewife is confronted by the continual rise of

prices. If we had had a Labour Government, we should have had a revival of the old Housewives' League, who yelled and screamed about the rising cost of living.

Mr. A. Lewis: Wearing their mink coats.

Mrs. Slater: Yes. I saw a mink coat advertised in the paper last week at 966 guineas, a special offer. I wondered how many of my constituents could find the 66 guineas, let alone the 900.
The Chancellor's own figures show that there have been considerable increases over this time last year. The right hon. Gentleman told us about transport. Before today's rise in fares, fares had gone up 11 points. I am taking the June figures. The price of bread and all confectionery has gone up, and we were warned last week that another rise in the price of bread is expected. The price of meat is up 11 points since this time last year. The price of sugar is up 20 points, and we all know what the usual answers are about that. The price of other household goods such as furniture and floor coverings has gone up 7 points over this time last year. So one could go on, even down to mentioning a rise of 7 to 11 points for having one's hair done, for laundry services and things like that.
The Chancellor said that we would have to control or hold public expenditure. One thing this Government have done during the past few years has been gradually to push more and more expenditure on to the local authorities, and this, of course, is reflected in the rates which people have to pay. One instance is care for the old. Because people are now living longer and we are beginning to realise, at long last, that we have some responsibility for the old, more and more local authorities are providing better Part III accommodation. The cost of this has gone on the local authorities. Another instance is the provision for children in care. The Bill on this subject which we had recently before the House gave the opportunity to help problem families, and the expenditure for this is pushed on to the local authorities. More and more is being pushed on to the local authorities, and the rates are reflecting the trend.
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) in


not begrudging any money which I pay for local authority expenditure. We get very good value for money, and, of course, if we had to depend on private enterprise for the emptying of our dustbins, the making of our roads or the provision of electric light, we should be paying very much more. Nevertheless, those who are most seriously affected by the rise in rates and the increase of local authority expenditure are the very people who can least afford it.
I will give the House an example. More and more local authorities are establishing smoke-control areas, and a good thing too, particularly in our industrial centres. Last week, on my local health committee, we discussed the question of grants to people who, because they live in a scheduled clean-air zone, will have to put in new grates and heating appliances. The local authority pays 70 per cent. of the cost and 30 per cent. falls on the householder, but there is power to reduce this amount if we find that people cannot afford that much. Case after case was reported to us, and after making allowance for rents, rates and other things we found that one family had 1s. 5d. a week left. Their bill for their clean air was £16 10s.—that was their 30 per cent. cost. That did not allow for the renewal of household linen, clothes or shoes. How can we expect people like that to measure up to the cost of putting in the necessary appliances for clean air? Others had 6s. 7d. and 5s. 3d. a week left. We gave them the whole amount, 30 per cent.—6s. 7d., 5s. 3d., or whatever the amount might have been. Those are extra costs on people.
We send people to housing estates in areas outside the towns. We have to do this because the cost of land in the town centres is too much to enable houses to be built there. As soon as we move people to the outlying areas we condemn them either to staying in that area for everything that they want or paying 1s. 2d. or 2s. 0d. in bus fares to enable them to get into the towns to see their relatives.
To listen to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby one would think that the question of profits did not matter and that it was not a factor which had to be considered. I wonder

what the housewife and old-age pensioner, or the person about whom the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is always talking, the person with a small income, thought this morning when they read the story of John Bloom and compared it with their own income. I wonder what the postman striking for better pay and taking home £12 a week out, of which he possibly pays £2 10s. in rent, thought when he read about John Bloom today?
How is it that prices and the cost of living can continually rise and yet one man and his friends can suddenly make the money which they have made? The answer is, first, because the Government have allowed to continue for a long time such things as switch buying and advertising a machine at 39 guineas with people finding, after they have seen the 39 guineas machine, that it was not what they thought they were buying and so bought the 59 guineas one. There is also the question hire purchase and the way in which people are persuaded to have more and more of it.
Possibly it has not dawned on many people yet, but the Ferranti concern can make more money out of one piece of armament than a whole crowd of people can make in their lifetime, even if they work every day that God sends. There is no sense or reason in the kind of society in which we are living.
I do not know whether the Government think that we are "mugs" in asking us to go into the Lobby in support of their Amendment concerning the stability of the cost of living. I believe that our Motion is absolutely right. It refers to the Government's pledge that they would mend the hole in the housewife's purse. I think that it was the editor of the Financial Times, or of one of the Sunday newspapers, who said that they have not mended it but keep making the hole bigger. That was not one of the Labour Party's newspapers. It was neither the Sunday Citizen nor the Daily Herald. The Government are making the hole bigger all the time.
The latest poster of the Tories is, "Trust the Tories and have a better standard of living". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I consider that a better standard of living is when housewives, when they do their shopping on Fridays


or Saturdays, are not worried by increased prices for coal, fuel, lighting and transport and everything else they want. I consider that a better standard of living is due, not to us in this House or to people in professional jobs, but to the old, to the man who takes home less than £12 a week, to the widow who is compelled to live on her low fixed income and to the woman whose children are going to grammar school for the first time this year, who is faced with a bill of about £20 or £30 for uniform and who gets a grant for her children from the Government of £5 until her children are 15.
I do not measure the standard of living by cars or television aerials. I measure it by what goes on in the ordinary household and the amount of worry which the ordinary man and woman have to endure in wondering whether they will be able to rear children properly and live a comfortable life. We are right to draw attention to the fact that over the last 13 years the Government have allowed the cost of living to increase and have brought about no stability in prices. Not only has there been an increase in the cost of living, but the Government have pushed on to local authorities and taxation the burdens of some of the things which they should bear.
I hope that tonight every one of us will go into the Lobby feeling that we are speaking to the ordinary people and not to the Ferrantis, John Blooms and other people in that class.

7.7 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-GoIdsmid: The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) ended her eloquent speech by asking what we meant by a higher standard of living. I am pleased to give her the answer. One thing which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree is that the standard of living of the defenceless part of our population is the most important consideration. This is the problem which affects us most, and particularly the retired pensioners.
In July, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
The consumption of carcase meat among pensioners has risen by about 55 per cent. over this period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July. 1964; Vol. 698. c. 828.]

That was since 1951—under 12 years of Conservative rule. I make this point not because I want to indulge in a great political oration, but because there are some realities which must be faced. To my mind, the fact that pensioners, instead of eating bread and potatoes, are eating 55 per cent. more carcase meat than they were 13 years ago shows a definite improvement in the standard of living which nobody can deny.
I do not personally enjoy these very statistical debates. The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) got very angry with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he started with the wrong base year in making some comparison. I tried to interrupt the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he spoke about league tables. I listen to the hon. Gentleman's speeches far more frequently than he listens to mine, but I am pleased to see him here now. This fact is not very surprising, because my speeches take place at a less fashionable hour than his.
The hon. Gentleman said that only France and Sweden showed a higher increase in the cost of living than this country. I have here figures from the O.E.C.D.'s statistical bulletin, which I imagine is fairly accurate. I tried to interrupt the hon. Member to say that the increase in the cost of living in Italy was higher than it was in this country.
I quote this en passant because it shows that debates on statistics tend to be unconvincing. I am reminded of an Indian friend of mine who, many years ago, when praising the British Press, said that it was so much better than was the Indian vernacular Press. "At least", he said, "your Press does not 'cook' the cricket scores."

Mr. G. Brown: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said "frigate".

Sir H. d'Avigdor-GoIdsmid: I said "cricket scores".
As I say, we can bandy statistics across the Floor of the House with neither side getting satisfaction and perhaps Members, like the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire, getting very angry because the statistics do not bring out the exact point which they seek to make.
It is rather curious that we have had two debates on the cost of living within the last three months. I say "curious", because usually the cost of living is a subject over which both Parliamentary parties prefer to draw a veil. There is a sort of tacit agreement that it is a subject which does not do much credit to either side; a subject which, perhaps, can be used, as it has been today, by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and his hon. Friends as a platform for making splendid electoral speeches, but which, on examination, shows that so far as the individual resident in this country is concerned neither side has been of much help to him in his battle with the cost of living.
I see the representative of the Liberal Party pricking up his ears, but I do not think that his party had any better record if we go back over the 60 years when it was last in office. The fact is that in this country we see one evil as the greatest that can face our industrial democracy, and that is mass unemployment. That is in the forefront of all our minds. All of us who are elected know perfectly well that if we told our electors that a measure of unemployment was in the national interest, we should be very unlikely to be returned. I was deterred from attempting to come into Parliament before 1945 because I felt that Parliament was not sufficiently interested in the mass unemployment of the 'thirties. But that is only a personal view.
The fact is that mass unemployment is, to us, the greatest possible evil. We put into a lesser category the threat of inflation. Countries on the Continent have known inflation and the ruin and the betrayal that inflation brings. Cerainly, Germany has it absolutely clear in its mind that inflation is the worst evil. I think, having been in Germany in the 1920s and having seen the destruction of family life and of everything that people hold decent simply by a deliberate act of the then German Government of inflating the currency to a ridiculous degree, that that is really the greatest evil.
We in this country have preferred to adopt a creeping inflation and think that it does not matter. But it does, because it is a dishonest way of meeting one's obligations. We are borrowing money

from the public and repaying them later with a slightly less valuable coin. There should be no exaggeration about this. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, for whom I have a great personal regard, made us feel that prices were jumping like frogs. I quote the Index of Retail Prices. In 1962 the monthly average was 101·6 and on 12th May this year it was 107. In other words, it has gone up by 6 per cent. in 2½ years, i.e., at a rate of 2½ per cent. per annum. This is nothing to be proud of, but it is not the dramatic and staggering thing which many hon. Members seem to suggest that it is.
We in this House bear a great measure of responsibility for this matter. In an economy such as ours which is so closely balanced and where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) pointed out, the margins of error are so very slight, we must maximise our productive power to paying our way in the world. The moment we divert our production not to paying our way, but to laying up treasures for the future—for instance, our educational programme of which we are all of us very proud—we have to realise that every single stone that is laid and every desk that is put into a school is something which we pay for out of current earnings, but does not put anything back into current earnings.
I know that we feel that in a number of years' time the result of our educational programme will be that the nation will have an increased earning power. But we must also bear in mind that at the moment the educational programme makes very great inroads into our national product, so we can certainly tell our constituents that we want to see them better educated in every way but it is no good pretending that the money for this educational programme will come from somewhere else. It will have to come from the rates or the taxes. We may argue whether it should come from the ratepayers or the taxpayers, and I am glad to think that there is a study being done on this point, but it has to come out of the productive capacity of this country and can come from nowhere else.
I am simply saying that wherever we are devoting current earnings to something that does not produce anything


immediately we are doing something which is putting a strain on our cost of living. The cost of living is governed to some extent by the cost of imports, although to a much lesser degree than formerly, and on that point I do not think that we are behaving sensibly in an adult world if we grumble too much about the additional cost of imported raw materials.
We must all recognise the fact that most of these raw materials come from the poorer quarters of the world, which we are striving and hoping to do something for, and it is better for this country to buy their goods even at a slightly better price for them, than it is to send them medical missions or aid in other ways. So if there is an increase in the cost of living we should not grumble at the cost of imports. In this House, where we divert the product of our industry and earnings into projects which are not directly revenue-earning, we are putting an extra burden on the cost of living. In the past it has sometimes been carried by imports, and the fact that commodity prices have been weak has helped us to maintain a higher standard of living at the expense of the Africans based on the products of Africa. Now the Africans are getting a very much higher price for their products, and we should not begrudge this.
But we in this House have the responsibility for the economy of the country and for the country's savings. This is essentially because we are a nation of savers. The savings movement has done marvels in the past and is doing very well now, but it could not achieve these results if people were not in a position to save and, secondly, if they did not have confidence in the money that they were saving and that its purchasing power was safe.
It has been sometimes suggested that if we really felt like this we ought to introduce into our savings system what is known in other countries as the index-linked bond. I am opposed to that. The index-linked bond guarantees the saver against the erosion of his capital by inflation. My view is that this is a national responsibility and that we should not give either rich people who want to contract out of our system or anybody else the chance of contracting

out of our system. We are all in this system together. I think that it is good for us as Members of Parliament to get constituency letters on points such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned, where we see the very great poverty that exists and in which we can to some extent help. We do our best. I am quite certain that the best service that we can render to our constituents and to the poorest people is to preserve the purchasing power of their money.
In the past, hon. Members opposite preserved the purchasing power of money artificially by subsidising every form of food. That is a quite undiscriminating exercise. Everybody got the benefit of the food subsidies regardless of income. It was a wasteful way of producing the right object.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Now, nobody gets any benefit.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: We need to bring people to realise that we are all in this together and that we must accept that it is no good expecting the schools, armaments or any other important programme to drop from the sky for us. These are things which we must work for and pay for out of production. Unless we do this, we will see our standard of living completely eroded.
I want to say one more thing about the comparisons which have been made with other countries. We in this country have not known the catastrophic inflation of Germany, France and Italy and, therefore, we ignore it. Those countries have wiped out the savings of their citizens and by wiping them out have established their countries free of debt and ready to take every form of industrial opportunity. We, on both sides, have thought it more honourable not to do that.
We must also be clear in our minds that we have responsibility for preserving the purchasing power of our money. It is a responsibility that falls upon all of us as Members of the House of Commons and we cannot shy away from it. I am, therefore, satisfied that, in the circumstances, the Government have done as well as was possible to prevent the erosion of purchasing power by more than 2 per cent. per annum, although that is a bad rate and it is one that I should like to see removed altogether. At the same


time, with 12 years' experience behind us, we can look forward confidently to another five years of office.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid). He seemed not to have taken the opportunity to read the Motion and the Amendment. The hon. Member must have forgotten all those Tory promises that were made and some of which are mentioned in the Motion. He referred, in passing, to food subsidies. I have no objection to his being of the opinion that food subsidies were wrong, or to his saying that they should be abolished, but I would rather him say that during a General Election instead of promising faithfully, as his party did, that it would not abolish food subsidies, and then coming into power and abolishing them.
I have no objection to the hon. Member saying that his party will not introduce measures to decontrol tenancies and to force up rents, but they should say so during the time of a General Election. What happened, however, was that prior to the 1959 election, the party opposite said that they would not decontrol tenancies or abolish rent control, whereas, in fact, it did.
I do not mind any Government finding themselves in difficulties or explaining them away. What I object to is that not only during the 13 years the Government have been in office has the £ fallen to its lowest level ever in peace or war, and not only is the cost of living higher than ever in the history of the country, but that the Government promised faithfully, not once, but dozens of times, on big posters and on radio and television, that they would reduce the cost of living, make the £ worth something and would see that the Tory Party would not increase, but would reduce, taxation.
What has happened over the years is that by direct legislative action, the Government have deliberately increased the cost of living. The official figures which I am about to quote can all be referred to in HANSARD in answers to Questions to Ministers. Let us look, first, at National Insurance contributions. From

October, 1951, until June, 1963, there has been a 173 per cent. increase in National Insurance contributions. At the same time, there has been a 100 per cent. increase in prescription charges, a 25 per cent. increase in the charges for optical treatment and an 18 per cent. increase in the charges for dentures.
The Government said that they would not increase taxation, but would reduce it. What are the facts? Taking the datum line in October, 1951, as 100, by July, 1961, there was a 47 per cent. increase in the fuel tax. That is direct Government taxation. Similarly there were increases of 23 per cent. in the tax on spirits, 19 per cent. on wines and 33 per cent. on tobacco, as well as the tax on sweets. I have no objection to the Government increasing these taxes. What I object to is that whenever the Tories contested elections, it was they who promised faithfully that they would reduce the cost of living and would not increase taxation.

Mr. W. Clark: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I usually give way, but I am not doing so now.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer spent a lot of his time this afternoon in going back over what happened between 1945 and 1951. There is, however, nothing about that in the Motion or in the Amendment and I should be inclined to suggest that, strictly speaking, the right hon. Gentleman was not in order. He then conveniently forgot that during that period import and world prices rose astronomically, particularly because of the Korean War. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) pointed out, notwithstanding that steep rise in prices, the cost of living rose far less drastically and rapidly during that period than in most major European countries.
Let us look at the Government's record, of which I have figures month by month from 1951 onwards. There has been hardly a time when the price of imports generally has not declined. Taking 1951 as 100, by 1964 the cost of our imports had declined by 14 per cent. The terms of trade had moved 31 per cent. in our favour. It is true that the cost of imported food, drink and tobacco rose by 5 per cent.
Let us consider what happens here at home, which reflects upon what the housewife has to pay. We will take food for example, bearing in mind what I have mentioned, that since October, 1951, import prices have gone up by 5 per cent. for food, drink and tobacco; I think that in the main the increase is in tobacco. Up to May this year the retail price of food has gone up by 56 per cent. What was the reason for the 51 per cent. differential? I do not know, but last week I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman to what extent these prices had gone up through Government action. I have not his words with me, but they are on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am speaking from memory, but he referred to the fact that this was due to Government action in abolishing food subsidies. It was promised by Lord Woolton on the radio, and the Tory Party said, that the Tories would not abolish food subsidies, but this 51 per cent. increase in the price of food, according to the Minister of Agriculture, was due in no small measure—I speak not of the Minister, but of his party—to lying deliberately to the electorate.
On the question of general prices, I want again to refer to the fact that import prices generally have dropped 14 per cent., but up to May this year the Index of Retail Prices has increased 49 per cent.—since October, 1951, and over the whole period in which the Tory Government have been responsible for our national affairs. As for purchasing power, the value of the £, as is said in the Motion, has gone down from 20s. to 13s. 4d. I want to emphasise and to keep on emphasising that this has been directly due to Government action. It cannot be due to world prices, because they have gone down, and it cannot, of course, as has been suggested, have been due to any action which the Labour Party has taken.
The Chancellor proudly boasted of the improvement in housing, but here again, one of the greatest causes of the increase in the cost of living is rent and rates. The right hon. Gentleman touched upon rates, but he did not go into the question of rents of houses in detail. If he had he would have told the House that while the Tory Party promised

400,000 houses, and though he may have been able to show that more houses have been built—and I accept that—there are about 50 per cent. fewer council houses being built than in 1947, two years after the war. This affects those with limited incomes, and those in the most urgent need, and those at the poorer wage levels, who, unfortunately, have recourse to local authority housing.
As is on record in HANSARD, I have asked a question about this. I have not the exact figures with me, but hon. Members will find the Written Answer in HANSARD for 10th July. I picked out a number of solidly Tory areas on the periphery of London, Ilford, Hornchurch, Wanstead and Woodford, and Chigwell and it was astonishing to find that whereas, in 1947, they were building 100, 200, 300, 400 houses, these numbers have dropped now to 15, 52, 100 respectively. Apply that throughout the country.
This is the picture of what I am trying to emphasise, that the Tory Party, by its housing policy, has deliberately increased the cost of living by making it virtually impossible for those on limited incomes to get council houses, and, by bringing in the Rent Act, has increased rents. Such people as postmen find that they cannot manage to pay £2 or £3 a week in rent when they are getting only £11 or £12 in wages. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is not very easy for those persons—and there are thousands of them—having a total income of anything from £12 to £15 a week, to pay £2, £3 or £4 a week rent—because they cannot get council houses, because the councils are not building so many of them. These are the sorts of things which help to increase the cost of living.
We have heard a lot of talk about the trade unions. I am proud to be a trade unionist. I think that the trade unions do a wonderful job. I can tell hon. Gentlemen opposite the sort of thing that happens, when an engineer, a bricklayer, a carpenter, or a postman goes home and gives his wage to his wife. She says, "The rent has gone up another 5s.," or, "The price of beef has gone up another 3s.," or the price of something else has gone up another 1d., or 2d., or 3d. And this is happening every week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Every week?"] Every week the price of some item, some commodity, goes up.
It is announced this morning that the price of bread, cakes and confectionery is the next on the list. So his wife says to him, "You must go round to your union and see that they get you an increase, because I just cannot manage on this money." And, of course, she cannot manage, and it is due to the fact that the Government themselves are responsible for these increases, because they are directly attributable to Government policy.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall, South was referring just now about electioneering speeches being made in the House. Of course there are. I remember that the Prime Minister, almost the first week he took office, said that every speech from now on must have the election in mind; and he has spent most of his time touring the country making electioneering speeches and refraining from answering questions here. I understand that he is to make a tour this week.
It is rather funny to my hon. Friends and me, who represent East London constituencies, that he is going, so it is said, to make a tour of the East End of London. I find that he is going to Chigwell, Billericay, and Epping. He is not going to Stepney, Whitechapel, Poplar, Bow, and West Ham, the places which, I thought, were the East End. No, he is going to Chigwell and Hornchurch. I hope that he will ask, when he is there, why it is that Hornchurch is now building only 14 council houses compared with the hundreds that it was building in 1947.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will make electioneering speeches. I hope that they will make them here and in the country, and will discuss with their constituents the question of the cost of living and why it has gone up. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) made it one of his points in the Faversham by-election. There were a number of people there buying their houses. He increased our party's majority there, even over that which the previous Member for Faversham had, and he, I believe, was the only Member on this side of the House who had an increased majority in the 1959 election.
I feel that our party has done right in bringing this Motion forward today. We should explain it to the people. We

should go to the country and tell them that not only have the Government not implemented their promises to reduce the cost of living, to mend that hole in the purse, to mend that hole in the pocket, but that, by their own economic and legislative programme and policy, they have been directly responsible for this high cost of living and for the depreciation in the value of the £.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A Lewis) has made no bones about making an election speech. As far as I am concerned, the more he makes in that vein the better it will be for the Tory Party. He has shown himself, as so many of the Opposition are, to be completely divorced from what we know to be the facts of today. After all, if our record had been anything like as bad as the hon. Gentleman has tried to make out, why were we re-elected in 1955 with an increased majority and again in 1959 with a bigger majority? There is no doubt that the record of the present Administration since 1959 has been the best of the three Administrations of the last 12 years. So we can say that the hon. Member's speech bore no resemblance to reality.
It was really the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) who showed up the weakness of the Labour Party's economic policy when he talked about the necessity for controlling the home market in cars to leave more for export. That shows plainly that he is living in the years 1945 to 1951 when it was the easiest thing in the world to export goods because markets all over the world were crying out for consumer goods. Now we find that in order to export cars we must subsidise the export trade by a very large home market, and without that very large home market it would not be able to sell anything like the number of cars abroad that it does. Now we need a strong home market to help us sell more abroad. The position is completely the reverse of what the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make out.
It has also been said that the Tory Party does a great deal of this before a General Election in order to put the new Government in a mess when it is over. It would be very unlikely that the Tory Government would do that. If it had


done that in 1955 and in 1959 we should not have been in the strong position we are today. If anything has made the position difficult for a Tory Government after an election, it is the upsurge of confidence throughout the economy at the thought of five years of Tory government, which has caused people to throw their hats in the air and go out and buy things. This has caused more inflation and more strain on the economy than anything else. The one thing that has dampened down the economy, fortunately for the Chancellor, in the last few months has been the thought that there might in October be a Labour Government. From that point of view, the Labour Party has been helping the Chancellor a great deal during the last few months.

Mr. Fernyhough: Has the hon. Member looked at the latest figure for hire purchase? There is not much damping down there.

Mr. Prior: I am really quoting what was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), that in the last five months the economy has been stagnant. I do not believe this to be true, but I believe that it would have got out of control to a much greater extent if there had not been some fear six months ago of a Labour Government coming to power. Happily for the country, that fear is now being fast removed.
Many hon. Members have compared our record at home with the record of other countries. I think we can say that our record in production and inflation has not been as good as that of Germany and possibly not as good as that of the United States. I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that Germany has had recourse to an expanding labour market, drawing from East Germany, Greece, Italy and other countries, and that the United States has had a level of about 6 per cent. unemployment throughout the post-war years. The interesting thing about the United States is that, despite all the efforts made by the late President Kennedy to expand the United States economy in order to reduce unemployment, although the economy may have expanded, the United States has failed signally to reduce unemployment.
I believe that we at home have only been moderately successful in keeping

our prices stable because we have a certain reticence in accepting any unemployment, rightly so, and also because we believe that we should always try to be fair, and, being fair, we never like to see anyone earning less than the average earnings of the nation as a whole. There is an amusing letter on that subject in The Times today. We find that in pay postmen and agricultural workers, in whom I have a great interest, are at the bottom end of the scale, and we want to do better for them. But as soon as we put them a little higher someone else goes to the bottom of the scale, and we then feel that we have a duty towards him. There is little doubt that some of our troubles since the war have arisen because we have been paying ourselves too much and not producing enough. It is not that we want to stop people earning.

Mr. A. Lewis: The Government do.

Mr. Prior: The Government do not want to stop people earning more money, but they have a responsibility to keep the economy in balance. Our problem has arisen because we have been trying to pay ourselves a little more than the work that we do deserves. If we do not face up to this problem, we shall not face up to any problem at all. The hon. Member spoke of housewives telling their husbands that they must earn more money because prices have risen. My experience is that on the whole housewives understand the problem far better than the men do and are trying to be a restraining influence on their men in many ways. They tell them, "Do not go for such high wages because that only forces up prices."

Mr. Duffy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since 1961 wage costs in Britain have declined by 10 per cent. compared with 20 per cent. in France, Germany and Italy, and that company profits last year rose twice as fast as income from employment?

Mr. Prior: I have carefully tried to avoid giving a lot of figures because I felt that in this debate many contradictory figures had been bandied about which did not really mean anything.

Mr. Duffy: I think that at the beginning of his speech the hon. Member said that, unlike my hon. Friend the


Member for West Ham, North, he would show a scrupulous regard for facts.

Mr. Prior: I could quote figures to the hon. Gentleman, if he wants them, to show that in the last 12 years average earnings have risen by 98 per cent. at a time when the cost of living has risen by 48½ per cent., which plainly shows that the average man is 33 per cent. better off in his earnings now than he was in 1951. But that is not the real argument before us today.
If we accept that Germany has had the best record of any country in the last few years, we must look at Germany and see what we can learn from her in order to improve our own position. There are two fundamental factors. The first is that the Germans have recognised the dangers of inflation to a greater extent than we have. Secondly, they have shown a much greater desire to get the work done and to produce goods than we have. It may be that Germany felt the impact of losing the war more than we felt the impact of winning it, but the fact is that in the last ten years Germany has produced a record to which we cannot possibly fail to pay some attention. If, in the next few years, we are to keep our cost of living stable and also enjoy higher production, we must be prepared to show a greater sense of urgency in the way we conduct our affairs than we appear to be showing at the moment.
I was glad that my right hon. Friend paid tribute to our food industries and the way in which we have managed our agricultural support system in the last few years. The contribution to stability of prices made by British agriculture is too easily forgotten. In the last year, however, we have seen a sudden change in the pattern of world agricultural production. Within the last five months beef supplies from abroad have fallen by about 40,000 tons. Yet, despite that fall, we have paid a little more than we paid last year, when the total imports included the 40,000 tons. If our imports had not fallen by 40,000 tons this year, we would have paid about £10 million extra.
Beef prices have risen very substantially against us this year. We have

paid £82 million more for food imports since January than we did last year. At the same time, however, our subsidy for beef is 2s. 9d. a cwt. compared with 2s. 6d. a cwt. last year. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary should be able to save a good deal again on agricultural subsidies.
The tendency for world prices of food to increase is a sound and good thing both for this country and the world in general. Over the last few years, we have not been paying the primary producers anything like enough. As a result, food production has not increased at the rate we want to see, particularly in this country, and we have been living off the backs of the agricultural producers of the world. Thus, the rise in food prices is a good thing for us all.
The policy of the free market, which the Government have adopted, must be the right policy. The Leader of the Opposition said a few weeks ago, when the beef crisis was at its height, that he wanted a return to long-term agreements with the Commonwealth and other arrangements with foreign countries. If we had such agreements with the Commonwealth, the chances are that we should have to pay a pretty high price for them because no Commonwealth country would agree to send its food at anything other than a good price. Similarly, if we had had a long-term agreement with the Argentine, we could not in any case have avoided the problems of the drought.
Last time we had these long-term agreements and commodity agreements was between 1948 and 1952, when food prices rose more sharply than at any other period since the war—about 10 per cent. per annum. I am not in favour of a return to long-term agreements. If our importers had thought that such agreements were in their interest, they would have taken them out before now. There is nothing to stop them doing so.

Mr. John Mackie: The Chancellor of the Exchequer taunted the Opposition, saying that we had no plan to reduce the price of food for housewives. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) talks about the price of food to the farmer and to the importer. He agrees that we import about £1,500 million worth of food annually and produce


about the same in value. But by the time that food gets to the housewife it costs about £7,800 million. Does not he agree that his Front Bench should be doing something? The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member himself are all members of an organisation which has been pressing for something to be done on the ground that there could be a huge saving.

Mr. Prior: I do not believe there are great savings to be gained in the chain between producer and consumer because the main cost in the chain is wages. For example, the price that the producer gets for a pint of milk works out at 5½d. to 6d., but it sells in the shop for 9d. If the public wants milk delivered on the doorstep, as apparently it does, then someone has to be employed in the early hours and at great expense to get it there, and it is in this sort of job that wages are high and costs mount.
The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) spoke of the cost of frozen food. That has recently gone up in price, and it is true that, while the farmer probably gets 5d. a lb. for peas from the factory, by the time the peas have been frozen and put into boxes the price may be 1s. 6d. or 2s. a 1b.—I do not know the price. But I am quite certain that there is little room in the middle where prices can be cut. Where farmers have gone into the business of selling their own food products, either through a butcher's shop or an organisation like the Livestock Marketing Corporation, or by selling from a stall in the market place, they have very quickly come unstuck.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman is confirming the point I have just made. He has quoted the example of milk, which is marketed by the Milk Marketing Board, a public monopoly which saves a tremendous amount of money.

Mr. Prior: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be making the opposite point and showing up the great divergence between what the producer gets and what the consumer has to pay. I do not think that his statement about the saving is correct. The profit margin of an organisation run by a marketing board is no smaller than the profit of one run by private enterprise. Indeed,

the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North talked about the great hold that monopolies have on prices and the lift they are always able to give them.
Surely the little man, selling in his own shop in close competition with others in trying to keep down prices, is far more effective. My right hon. Friend quoted the prices of meat imports as having risen by 16 per cent. this year. But the price of meat in the shops has not risen by as much as that. That is an example of where competition is keeping prices down.

Mr. A. Lewis: Where does the hon. Member buy his meat?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member is a great one for interrupting from a sitting position. I buy my meat from a butcher's shop in a village.

Mr. Lewis: May we have his address?

Mr. Prior: I have had a long talk with that butcher and I am satisfied that he is not making any profit. Competition from other butchers is keeping his prices down. The public have the freedom to shop where they like and do not buy meat if they do not want it. What did more than anything else to reduce the prices of meat over Whitsun, when we heard a great deal about how high prices of meat would go, was that housewives stopped buying beef, with the result that prices fell. That is the way the market should work.
We all have to admit that we have not been able to stabilise prices as we would have liked. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East talked about "mending the hole in the purse" and said that it was now a big hole. It is a little hole and far more goes into the purse than comes out of the bottom. The result is that the people of Britain are better fed, better housed and better looked after than ever before in their history.
The Opposition speak about poverty and bitterness, but my experience is exactly the opposite. The great benefit which the Tory Government have brought to the nation over the last twelve years has been to take the bitterness out of politics. One can now go into the worst areas of towns and to housing estates and be certain that one will get a good reception. This is why I am certain that we shall be re-elected, because


we have served the nation and served it jolly well.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said that he would have a greater regard for facts than did my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), but I do not think that he did. He must agree that although my hon. Friend applied himself with great robustness to his assessment of the behaviour of our economy under a Tory Government, none the less he dealt with all the important economic indicators. His treatment of them amounted to one long indictment of the Government's management of our economy.
My hon. Friend barely allowed himself an opinion. He did not have to do so, for he allowed the facts to speak for themselves. The hon. Member for Lowestoft allowed himself much more opinion. In a sense, I agree with him that it is very difficult to get to grips with the facts in a debate like this. It is so easy to take those facts which suit one's argument. It is not the facts themselves which matter so much as our treatment of them. What is more important is that we should draw the right conclusions.
On reflection, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North was wiser than any previous speaker in that he allowed the facts to speak for themselves. I hope that I do not fall too much into the error if I take my own periods for comparisons of prices. I shall follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), although the Chancellor of the Exchequer took him to task for it. The Chancellor preferred to consider movements of prices over the last year. I shall consider the first half of this year, comparing it with the corresponding periods of the previous two years.
The Chancellor said that prices had gone up only 2 per cent. during each of the last two years. However, they have risen by 3 per cent. so far this year. I know that the Chancellor would not agree that I should be entitled to draw from that the conclusion that prices will

rise 6 per cent. this year, but that depends on whether one is as optimistic as he is and believes that we have our prices under control and that they will continue to go up at the same rate. Nobody can be sure of that and it is quite on the cards that prices will spurt and, far from going up only 6 per cent. this year, will go up more than 6 per cent.
The Chancellor also took my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East to task for his treatment of taxation increases on tobacco and alcohol. However, the Chancellor was less than fair to my hon. Friend, because there are many qualifications to be made. The Chancellor qualified the rôle of tobacco and alcohol as factors in the cost of living, but he might have added that while one must give due weight to their rôle in providing for social benefits, they were overweighted in the cost-of-living index. In the period 1961–63, alcohol represented only 3·9 per cent. of household expenditure, although weighted in the Index at 6·3 per cent. Tobacco is similarly overweighted. It is assumed to represent 7·4 per cent. of average expenditure, but the sample recorded shows it at 6·4 per cent. and in the period 1961–63 it represented only 6·7 per cent. of total consumer expenditure.
I should have liked to comment on what the Chancellor said about savings, but my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East delivered a long, searing indictment of Conservative management of our economy over the last 13 years, and the Chancellor's only answer was a series of quibbles.
I want to follow the Chancellor, however, and push his analysis of the cost-of-living index and the factors influencing it a little deeper. Most of us believe that the forces pushing up the index are milk, the rating demands of local authorities, rents and houses generally, services, fuel and food. Some of these are not subject to seasonal influences, which somewhat reduces the Chancellor's argument that the present increase may have reached its peak because last month happened to be June.
While tobacco and alcohol are overweighted, some important elements in the index, which have an important impact on the increases in the cost of housing,


services and transport, are under-weighted. If they were not under-weighted, the index would show an even faster rise. Moreover, if we add the latest fares increases to these factors of housing, fuel and food which have risen more than the average for all items, it becomes clear that the prices of necessities since January, 1962, have risen faster than the prices of other goods. The poorer one is, the more heavily these price increases bear—this is a point which has not been made in the debate so far—because the higher the proportion of one's income these prices take up.
It is the poorer people who are suffering much more than the mere 3·9 per cent. which the Chancellor said the cost of living had risen by in the last year, or more than the 3 per cent. which I insist it has risen by in the first half of this year. When we probe a good deal deeper than the Chancellor did and give due weight not merely to the different elements in the index, but to the way in which they bear on different income groups, we can take a much more serious view of the present increase in the cost of living.
I am reminded of another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North. It was a good point, and it had not been made before. I agree with my hon. Friend that the cost-of-living index would go up even more if it gave any place to National Insurance contributions. When one remembers the tremendous increase in contributions which has taken place under a Tory Government, one is entitled to wonder why place is not given to that in the index.
The Chancellor did not say so, but I thought that he conveyed the impression that because prices had reached their peak they would not rise any more, but one can fairly ask whether the rise is likely to continue. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that they usually fell from now on because of reduced fruit and vegetable prices, and this year he will be helped by the weather, but it is possible that these reductions will be offset by beef prices. They may very well be offset by rising costs in industry. I shall have more to say about this later, because I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) that this is the most important question that we should

be discussing this afternoon. I agree that we should be discussing the quality of our productive power, its efficiency, and just how capable it is likely to be in the foreseeable future of sustaining the vast expenditure on public services on which both parties are now agreed.
Before I do that, however, I think that we should look a little more closely at the possible causes of present price increases. There has been a tendency—perhaps this is inevitable—for blame to be flung from one side of the House to the other. When I was listening to the opening speeches, I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) say—I hope that I am not misjudging him—that wage increases were playing a disproportionate rôle in the movement of prices. I thought that he, or his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking), thought that the present pricing policies of the nationalised industries were again largely to blame, and I should like to look at both those factors, as well as at profits.
As I said to the hon. Member for Lowestoft, since 1961 the wage costs in this country have declined by 10 per cent. relative to France and Germany, and by more than 20 per cent. relative to Italy. It is very interesting to look at the Economic Report for 1963. This Report is not up-to-date, but it is the latest that we have. Back benchers have to face the difficulty of always being months behind with facts that matter. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not take me to task for quoting from this Report, because I do so in good faith.
On page 16 of the Report we see wage costs per unit of output began to decline in the autumn of 1961, right through 1962, into 1963. I do not know how far they have moved since then, though I have done my best to find out. At the same time as wage costs per unit were going down, the wholesale prices of output, as well as the wholesale prices of materials, were going up. I find, too, that the percentage increase in profits in 1963, compared with 1962, was 6·7, whereas the percentage increase in income from employment for the same period was 5·1. Though income from employment went up by 10·4 per


cent. in the fourth quarter of 1963 compared with the first quarter—which, again, is the latest information that I have, having obtained it as late as this afternoon—company profits went up by twice as much, by 21·3 per cent., and I should be surprised if company profits slackened off in the first half of this year.
So much for the possible influence of demand on prices, or inflation as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) said. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now returned to the Chamber. I thought that his speech was a little inconsistent. I could, of course, use a stronger term. The hon. Gentleman expressed himself in opposition to subsidies, and to the conscious location of industry. He knows that the Whitby half of his constituency can survive only if it receives both. The most heated objections have been made by his constituents to the possible cuts by Dr. Beeching of their railway link. The hon. Gentleman knows the area better than I do, but I know it well enough to say that it is unlikely that it could get on in future without rail links. The hon. Gentleman also knows that Whitby needs, and demands, the conscious location of industry, yet he expressed himself in opposition to both.
So far as I followed the hon. Gentleman's speech, I thought that he was accusing my hon. Friends of living in the past. Many of us on this side of the House think that he is doing just that. So far as I was interested in anything that he said, I thought that he gave all possible weight to the impact of demand on inflation, although I think that he will agree that that is not the only influence. There is, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, the influence of cost, and I want to look briefly at that.

Sir A. Spearman: Whitby's railway link may not be relevant to the debate, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I spent two days at the T.U.C.C. inquiry last week making four speeches to that effect.
As regards the location of industry, Whitby depends primarily on the

tourist holiday business. It will be one of the first towns in the country to suffer if we do things which are bad for the economy as a whole.

Mr. Duffy: I know that the hon. Gentleman supported the demands of his constituents for the retention of the rail link, and their resistance to Dr. Beeching's cuts. That is why I thought that his speech was inconsistent when he declared his opposition to subsidies. No doubt when his constituents read HANSARD, and the Evening Gazette, they will want him to define his attitude.
What is the influence of cost on prices? In the light of the information that is available to us, I think that one can say that it cannot be assessed in terms of trade. One is irresistibly driven to the conclusion that it is due to the strain on the economy, and this is where most hon. Members will come together. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed the same concern as we have, but although most of them feel it in their bones they are not prepared to accept that the management of our economy is not in good hands. After only a year of expansion, our economy is already under strain. There is no blinking one's eyes to this fact. The storm signals are already flying over our economy. It is constantly under strain, and the present increase in prices is only one sign of it.
I asked the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby how long the index of production had stayed at 126. He thought that it was three months. He may be interested to know that it has stood at that figure for six months. In its latest survey, the National Association of British Manufacturers has confirmed that production has levelled off.
Who would have thought, only a year ago, when employment began to rise, or 18 months ago, when production began to rise, that already, in July, 1964, we would be thinking of putting on the brakes and damping down demand? I do not know what measures the Chancellor will use, but this afternoon he did not convince my hon. Friends and I when he took a complacent view. We know that our economy is in a bad way, and his handling of the economy is highly questionable.
Now I want to concern myself with efficiency. The hon. Member for Walsall, South is absolutely right. It is the quality of our productive power that should be exercising our minds now. Even within the assumptions of hon. Members opposite they could have done much more to improve competition within our economy, and in this way protect the consumer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) said, they could have increased the countervailing power of the consumer. They could have done something to control advertising. They could have insisted on more information in company accounts. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has said, they could have employed unilateral tariff cuts, with balance of payments safeguards. But no; they have not done any of these things.
Instead, they ask us, in the Amendment, to continue to support their economic and financial policies. When I look at those policies I ask why the Conservative Government have been so half-hearted in recent years in the adoption of policies for growth and efficiency. One could have fairly said that a Conservative Government and Chancellor of the Exchequer would do their best with such policies.

Sir A. Spearman: If the hon. Member will look at the Economic Report to which he has referred he will find that in the last year of the Labour Government output per man hour was rising at about 2 per cent.; now it is rising at just under 4 per cent.

Mr. A. Lewis: What was it in 1950?

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby may be right. I do not know whether his figures are absolutely correct, but an increase in productivity of about that amount has taken place. But one can still ask whether it has been enough.
There is a widespread feeling that the present increase in productivity is unlikely to make possible and to sustain the 4 per cent. growth rate which we all agree to be necessary.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: If my hon. Friend accepts the figure given by the hon. Member for

Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) as progress it presupposes that there is no increase in productivity by virtue of technological change.

Mr. Duffy: Yes. The features of Government policy that have disheartened me so much in the last two or three years have been their seeming conflicts. Let me give two or three illustrations. I was interested in the pledges that five industries gave only this year that they would not put up their prices. Most hon. Members are aware of the identity of those industries, but how many are aware that they are all highly concentrated, and, with the exception of one—the coal industry—are certain victims of the Government's monopolies legislation, as foreshadowed in the White Paper published a fortnight ago? There we have one such conflict of policy.
I supported the legislation on resale price maintenance early this year. I agree that it is important to modernise our economy. I welcome that legislation just as I welcome the White Paper on Monopolies, Mergers and Restrictive Practices. But I wonder, just as many of my hon. Friends have wondered, whether the Government have introduced these two measures early enough and in the right order.
If we look more closely at what the Government are trying to do through their monopolies legislation we see that they are trying to promote greater competition in general—which I welcome. But the Government will have to exert specific influence in steering the economic behaviour of industry in markets where competition will not practically prevail. In other words, they must restore conditions of classical competition in a modern developed economy where various forms of oligopoly are the characteristic market structure.
The Government are pursuing an impossible policy, if not trying to ride two horses at the same time, because they are also trying to exert more pressure through N.E.D.C., which puts the emphasis not on competition but on business co-operation and co-ordination, rather than on sheer self-interest. In other words, on the one hand, the Government are opting for the old-fashioned ways of providing a spur to business efficiency, while, at the same time, fostering the newer methods of co-ordinating


the national economy. The Government should ask themselves how far their nineteenth century outlook on industry squares with modern trends, such as planning for innovation and pooled development programmes—how far their economic romanticism ties in with modern consultation in long-term economic growth.
We are also entitled to ask—and this is the most important question of all—how far hon. Members opposite appreciate the fact that the real problem that confronted the Chancellor earlier this year, when he introduced his Budget, was not the question of recovery towards full employment, but, rather, the expansion of our economy once full employment had been reached. That is the big question. We have reached this point now. Are we to damp down demand and go back to a policy of "stop-go" or take underlying economic expansion from here? Are we to go on to a 4 per cent. growth rate and sustain it?
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, I am an expansionist. We must not go back. But if we are to continue to expand we must accelerate the expansion of capacity. We must convert the country from a low to a high investment economy. When one studies the figures for the last three years, whatever the Chancellor and other right hon. hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, the picture is dismal. Manufacturing investment continued to slide, through 1961 and 1962 well into 1963.
Indeed, if it had not been for public investment in the nationalised industries the economy would be in an even weaker state than it is. Fortunately for the Government and the country, the sustained boom earlier this year was due to the rising investment which was brought into being in the public sector. This is a vital point to bear in mind. Unhappily, there was not enough investment, even in the nationalised industries, and not enough new productive capacity brought into being. Much more efficiency and productivity is necessary if we are to achieve and sustain the boom we expect.
When I saw the Secretary for Industry and Trade on television recently, I was saddened to him say that he would resist the extension of nationalisation into

manufacturing industry. For, if we had been dependent on investment in manufacturing industry, the economy would indeed be weaker. It is investment in the nationalised industries which has been responsible in the last few years for sustaining the private sector of the economy.
Britain's policies for growth and efficiency must, whichever Government is in power, include the removal of obstacles to growth, such as obstacles in the way of increasing training, educational facilities and incentives. We must alter our whole thinking towards the structure of industry, stimulate rationalisation, encourage innovation and promote dynamism.
When the Chancellor said that while it was all very well to look back on the past 13 years it was equally important to look forward, he is only repeating what my hon. Friends and I have for long been saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East spent a considerable time in his speech dealing with possible measures for achieving greater growth and efficiency. He put forward two definite policies for achieving it. I have put forward some suggestions for achieving what might be called medium-term growth, based on selective stimuli, rather than global demands, which appear to be the main weapon of the Government and which they unfailingly fall back upon.
Undoubtedly, to achieve growth it is necessary to increase productive capacity. Unless we steadily expand our economy and ensure real increases in income, and increase our rate of growth, we will not achieve conditions for a national incomes policy. Such a policy will be achieved only by selective stimuli and purposive planning. The methods adopted by the Government, even in cooperation with N.E.D.C., in the last few years have been too indicative, when there is a much greater need for imperative action, such as I have outlined.
The suggestions my hon. Friends and I have been making go far beyond the assumptions on which the Government normally proceed. It is for this reason I now feel inclined to do a little electioneering, in which several hon. Members have indulged, for I can properly say that after 13 years' management of the economy by this Government the people are entitled now to consider the


case for a change. They are entitled to wonder whether our economy will be improved only if there is a change, preferably to a Government with the right sort of policies to secure growth and efficiency.
The Labour Party has such policies. Particularly important is the need, for any Government who are in power, to give businessmen the impression that even when the going is hard, and there are difficulties, expansion will continue. It is because of these considerations that the electorate are entitled to a change.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. William Clark: I will not comment on the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy), except to say that it was rather unfair of him to accuse my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of being complacent. Whatever might be said, I cannot see how anyone can suggest that he has been complacent. He has many times pointed out that we are on a razor-edge economy, but it was rather ungenerous of the hon. Member to suggest that my right hon. Friend had or is being complacent.
I was Somewhat interested in the argument of the hon. Member for Colne Valley to the effect that the nationalised industries have been responsible for our prosperity. The burden of his argument seemed to be that nationalisation was the only way to bring prosperity. I hope he realises that the nationalised industries contribute only an infinitesimal amount to our export drive. His comments about businessmen would, I should have thought, be apt to work in reverse; that the very things he spoke about would urge businessmen to return a Conservative Government.
I cannot think that anyone could be sufficiently naïve to think that, having known this Government for 13 years, they would be willing to place in office the Opposition, the only alternative to the Government. I cannot think that anyone would be sufficiently naïve as to say, "Let us have a change for the sake of a change". I do not believe that the electors are sufficiently stupid to elect any Government or Opposition and at the same time to give them a blank cheque, as it were.
I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) is not at present in his place, because he accused this present Government of having done nothing about reducing taxation over the last 12 or 13 years. He recounted increases in fuel tax, wine tax, and the rest, but he did not for one moment suggest a reduction in taxation. Hon. Members opposite should remember that if the same rate of taxation operated today as operated in 1951 when they were in office—[Interruption.] This is a fair point to make.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North accused this side of doing nothing about reduction in taxation, and I am merely trying to prove that his argument is fallacious. If, as I was saying, taxation remained today exactly as it was in 1951, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be extracting an additional £1,200 million or £1,300 million a year from the taxpayer. I should have thought that reductions of that order were something that should not be misrepresented in the country.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North also spoke of rent control. This Government gave a pledge about the Rent Act before the 1959 election, and said that they would not allow rent decontrol to be extended beyond that existing at that time—

Mr. A. Lewis: The Government started it.

Mr. Clark: It would be as well for the purposes of clarity in all these debates if hon. Members were to say what they really meant and not later make out that they said something else—

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Clark: No—time is getting on. And I would remind the hon. Gentleman that unlike my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who gave way four or five times, the hon. Gentleman, when I sought to interrupt him on two or three occasions, said, "No, we have already lost an hour. I will not give way." I appreciate that the House listens with bated breath to anything the hon. Gentleman says—[Interruption.]
We have had inflation in this country for many years. Only on a very few occasions when we have had periods of


extreme recession has inflation been stopped. Sometimes it has gone on quickly, and sometimes it has been controlled and gone on more slowly. As the Motion refers back to 1951 it would be as well to see what happened between 1945 and 1951 and compare that with what happened between 1951 and 1964.
If we take 1938 as a base year with prices at 100, in 1946 the figure had gone to 164 and in 1951 to 223—a rise of 59 points. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that this rise was mainly due to the Korean War. Again, let us take the value of the £. If in 1945 the £ was worth 20s., by 1951 it had gone down to 14s. 3d. This, presumably, was due to the Korean War—a drop of 5s. 9d. in the value of the £ in six years of Socialism. Of course, we had difficulties after the war, but we must realise that in the six years to which this Motion refers—six years of Socialist Administration—the value of the £ fell by about 11½d. per year.
I accept, and my right hon. Friend would accept—no one can deny it—that there has been a further fall in the value of the £. If the value of the £ was 20s. in 1951, it is now down to 13s. 4d. That is a fall of 6s. 8d. in the £ in 13 years. I will try to collate these figures later, but my only comment at the moment is that while in the years from 1945 to 1951 the £ fell by 11½d. a year, in the years from 1951 to 1964 it fell by just over 6d. a year.

Mr. Monslow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the time of the Korean War we paid £1,000 million more for the same volume of goods than we did in the preceding year?

Mr. Clark: I thought that earlier in the debate the figure quoted was about £600 million more, but let us for the sake of peaceful argument accept that the Korean War was the bugbear of the Socialist régime. Let us also remember that between 1945 and 1951 we had a little thing called devaluation, due no doubt to the Korean War, though in fact it happened before it, and between 1945 and 1951 we incurred overseas debt, particularly the United States loan, of £2,000 million which this country will

be paying back until the year 2,000. Presumably we could say that this also was due to the Korean War.
I am prepared to accept, as I am sure is every fair-minded person, that after the Second World War there was a tremendous amount of work to be done which was not necessarily productive and to bring back our industry into full play and into a full exporting position, but with the wildest stretch of imagination I do not think that one can attribute the fall in the value of the £, the devaluation, and the American loan as all due to the Korean War. Something might have been, but let us also assume that it may possibly have been that some of the Socialist policies were wrong and contributed towards the economic situation.
The Motion refers to the cost of living. Here again, one should compare the period 1945 to 1951 with 1951–64. I shall not give percentages. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East gave them, no doubt extremely accurately, but he knows as well as I do that a percentage depends upon a base. An increase from 5 to 10 is a 100 per cent. increase, and an increase from 10 to 12 is only a 20 per cent. increase. Therefore, we must be clear that the bandying about of percentages does not tell people very much unless one provides the base figures.
Let us take an increase of 1s. in prices between 1945 and 1951 and an increase of 1s. between 1951 and 1964. The true comparison then is the average earnings in those two periods. Between 1945 and 1951 the average increase in earnings was 9d., yet prices rose by 1s. and consequently the wage-earner was worse off in real terms. Since 1951 earnings have gone up by 1s. 6d. for every increase of 1s. in prices. This cannot be refuted and it brings the matter down to a simple level which everybody can understand.
The Motion also implies that we are living under reduced standards. Nobody on either side of the House can suggest for a moment that our standard of living has been reduced in the last 12 or 13 years. One could quote the number of television sets, washing machines, motor cars and the rest, and we all know that the figures for these goods have gone up. One of the most notable things, and my hon. Friend the Member for


Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) touched upon this, has been the increase in savings since 1951. In that year £100 million were saved by the small saver, but the figure for 1964 will be something like £2,000 million. This is not a sign of a poverty-stricken nation or of a people who are feeling the reduced circumstances of their living.
The Motion also refers to exports and says that the actions of the Government endanger great Britains overseas trading position. What is the position? In 1951, we were exporting, in round figures, £2,700 million worth of goods. Today the figure is just over £4,000 million. It may be said that this is not very great, but it is an increase. The House should remember that we are starting from a fairly high base—£2,700 million. It should also be remembered that it was only in about 1950–51 that the markets of the world were changing and when our former competitors, particularly West Germany and Japan, were industrialised. Everybody knows, whether he was in the House or not, that in 1951 we were living in a seller's market. We have not been living in a seller's market since 1951.
Hon. Members opposite should remember that there is no point in criticising our export record and saying how small it is, when in 1951 Germany and Japan, to say nothing of other countries, were not really engaged in the export field. Any industrialist will confirm that statement, and I am sure that many hon. Members opposite know it, too.
It is said that our balance of payments is being endangered. Let us see what the position is. Between 1945 and 1951 we made a loss on our balance of payments, due to various circumstances, and I do not mind to what circumstance hon. Members care to attribute this loss. We had a deficit of £650 million. Since 1951 we have made a surplus of about £1,200 million.
Hon. Members opposite must be fair. If they are criticising the present Administration for lack of foresight or lack of planning, however they like to put it, let us see how much better they could have done. The only comparison we have is the 1945–51 Socialist régime. The international league is occasionally bandied

about and we are told that we are third or tenth in the league but never top. Never once in talking about this international league do hon. Members opposite say that we in this country have had full employment since the end of the last war. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South mentioned this fact, and we should always remember that unemployment is one of the greatest fears of the ordinary man and woman. We in this country have maintained full employment since 1951, and if that fact is taken in conjunction with the international league table it will be found that we have not done too badly.
Of course, the cost of living increase has not been halted. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave figures showing that the cost of living has increased. But it has increased at a much slower rate—at the rate of 2 per cent. That increased rate of 2 per cent. is the price we pay for full employment, and I should not have thought it was a high price. I should have thought it much better for the country to be assured of full employment, even though it may mean a slight inflation. Obviously we could not do with huge inflation, but 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. should be all right.
One danger arises from the question of getting a realistic incomes policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said that when we tried to help people on the lower range of the scale and increased their wages there was a leapfrogging effect. We must get some realism into this matter.
On the question of the advent of automation, I welcome the measures for industrial retraining announced by the Government, and I hope that this will be accelerated. There is no point in having automation in this country if we do not take advantage of it. There is no point in having under-employment in the automated industries in order to be able to say that we have full employment. We must have industrial retraining on an accelerated scale.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley, towards the end of his speech, said that the N.E.D.C., concept was, at present, indicative and he thought that it should be imperative. Presumably, this means that there should be no persuasion but


direction. Here lies the essential difference between the two parties on this issue. On this side, we try to set the scene wherein the businessman, the wage earner, the income earner, whoever he may be, can earn his living. We say that by persuasion the scene is set and by persuasion we will try to get people to do this and that. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite, as I understand them—I think that this was indicated in the speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley—would say, "You will do this, that and the next". We have had all this before. We had it between 1945 and 1951, and it did not work then.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the Government are persuading land speculators to moderate their demands?

Mr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman will not have overlooked that there is a capital gains tax in existence. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend dealt with land fairly comprehensively, I thought. But my real point in talking about persuasion by the Government was to refer to incentives. One can go to the development districts, to the North-East, for instance, and see what is happening. The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but it is working in the North-East. Let hon. Members opposite go to the development districts and try laughing at them and say that the Government's methods mean nothing.
Ours is the method of Government by persuasion, and in this sense much is happening. Of course, it is easy to sit here and say to a firm that it must now move to Newcastle or somewhere else. What the Government are doing is to give an incentive, and this is the persuasion I am speaking about.
In putting down this Motion and in talking about the cost of living, the Opposition are on very thin ice. They never like to have their own record compared with ours, and this, of course, is all we can do. We can only compare records and find out which is the best of the two Governments. When all has been said, the fact is that over the past 12 or 13 years the standard of living has risen by about 40 per cent. All the argument back and forth cannot detract from that. I am certain that when

October comes and the opportunity is given to renew the Government's mandate the electorate will realise from whom they get the best value.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I have very little time, but I want to say one thing to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark). If he will forgive my using the term, it is one of the stupidest arguments which can be used in support of the Government to argue that our standard of living is up by 40 per cent. and that it is higher than it has ever been before. The same is true of Communist Yugoslavia, Socialist Sweden, Fascist Spain, Christian Democrat Germany and Liberal Canada. The hon. Gentleman would not use that argument as a justification for all those political systems, would he? Of course, technological progress has meant that the standard of living has risen all over the Western world irrespective of political systems. There may be many good arguments to use on the hon. Gentleman's side, but that is certainly not a valid one as he uses it.
What we are concerned with is not to examine the Government's record in relation to other Governments—it is not possible to have a valid comparison—or to contrast the record of this Government with the record of the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951. I have no brief whatever for the Socialist Party on its economic policy, and I am a great believer generally in the free market economy, but conditions are totally different now from what they were between 1945 and 1951. We must judge any Government, as we want to judge this Government on this subject, on whether we think that they have taken all proper steps to reduce the cost of living.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) opened this debate with various league tables, most of which were, I think, invalid. I thought that the only possible valid comparison which could be made from his tables was between this country and its greatest rival possibly in the export field—Western Germany. It is very interesting that, as I think the hon. Member pointed out, West Germany possibly has the best record for increasing production, keeping the cost of living down, and so on. But it is very significant that it is led by the


greatest exponent, certainly in our day, of the free market economy.
The criticism which can be made of the Government is that their record, certainly with some differences in conditions, compares very badly with that of West Germany.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Hooson: I have only five minutes, and as the hon. Gentleman did not give way at all in his speech I think I am entitled to continue.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy), in a most interesting contribution, put his finger on the real evil of the continual rise in the cost of living when he said that it hits the poor people most of all. The class in our community we have tended to forget is the consumers. It covers every one of us. I think that more silent but real and uncomplaining suffering in this country is due to the continual rise in the cost of living than to anything else. Every penny added to a loaf, every halfpenny put on a unit of electricity, every penny put on a bus fare, every 6d. put on the cost of 1 cwt. of coal—all this hits the consumer, particularly the people on low fixed incomes.
It is largely true—and I should not dispute it—that wages and profits have kept pace with the spiral of inflation. The people who have been hit all the time are the pensioners, people on fixed incomes and those with large families. That is why the greatest benefit that any Government could confer on the people of this country would be to stabilise or reduce the cost of living. That would benefit everybody.
In the very short time at my disposal, I should like to suggest certain vigorous measures, which the Government could pursue if, as I presume, they believe largely in a free market economy. They could ensure as much true competition as possible. This means that they would have to take far more effective action against monopolies than they have taken in the past. They have had 13 years in which to take vigorous action against what Roosevelt described as "systems of private socialism". They have done very little in this matter.
The Government could, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley suggested, use

unilateral tariff reductions to ensure that greater competition was brought into industry when it was needed. But what is needed all the time is the restoration of price competition. This is not contrary to economic planning in its modern sense; it is part of it. We must plan the economy so as to ensure greater price competition.
A real difficulty which will face a Labour Government as much as any other is this. There has been a tendency for the results of technical progress in industry continually to go out in increased wages and profits rather than in lower prices. If we were less concerned with the level of profits but more concerned with lowering prices it would be much better for the majority of people in this country.
One hon. Member opposite chided members of the Labour Party with being disciples of Gladstone. If that was the worst charge which could be made against them, I should feel much closer to them than I do. If the spirit of Gladstone actuated the Opposition, or, indeed, the Government, the people of this country would be far more sure that we were getting better value for money in Government expenditure than we are. Much greater scrutiny of Government expenditure is necessary. In any economy—mixed, free enterprise or Socialist—there is bound to be a good deal of Government expenditure. It is necessary for the House of Commons to ensure, through careful scrutiny, that the money is spent wisely and well and that we get value for the money spent. I think that in our day we tend too much to take it for granted that every Government must necessarily spend a great deal of money and that what a Government spends ought not to be challenged. In fact, the efficacy of the Government is too often judged by the amount of money they spend rather than how they spend it. That is quite a wrong approach.
Although I have been squeezed out to about seven minutes, I do not want to take up the time of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), and I conclude by saying this. Our indictment of the Government is not that they have not been following the kind of measures suggested largely from the Labour Front Bench, but that they


have been very poor exponents of the free enterprise system and they have allowed enterprises which ought to have been subjected to far more competition to be protected from competition. They have failed to create the right conditions to obtain the greatest possible benefit for the majority of the people of this country from a free enterprise system.
They have, in fact, allowed large profits to be made and an inflationary wages spiral to be set up without taking proper steps to reduce prices, and it is by reducing prices, above all, that they can benefit the majority of the people.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and I am grateful to him for disciplining himself and cutting his speech short. Had his Gladstonian theories had their way, the electors of Montgomery, who lean more heavily than most upon State help and national direction, would have been having a very thin time. I think that he ought to go home and have a look at this again before he urges it too strongly upon us, or he may find that at the election things are a little different.
I ought to begin by having a look at the Motion and at the Amendment. Our Motion simply invites the House to recall that in 1951, when Her Majesty's present Administration won their first mandate, it was on the basis, using their words, that they would "mend the hole in the housewife's purse", to which the Government have put down an Amendment inviting the House to leave out those words. They were their own words.
We are to have the debate wound up tonight by just about the most brass-faced Minister who sits on the benches opposite. The Chancellor need not suggest to his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury the answer to that; he already knows it. It was the right hon. Gentleman who made a reputation by urging everybody to disagree with the incoming Government on the ground that they should not co-operate with them on penalty of being called Quislings. We ought to ask the Quisling-in-chief why he is so offended by having his mind directed back to the pledge that he personally so

prominently gave in 1951. Is it because he has failed so completely in the pledge that he gave? Is not that the real truth?
We do not need to spend time in proving the prices case. The fact is that the Ministers who are speaking today—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a little less enthusiasm, because he is a different kind of man, and Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who will follow me and who will, no doubt, have rather more enthusiasm, because he is a different kind of man, too—know that the Government have failed to honour the pledge on which, above all else, they were elected. That was the pledge to mend the hole in the housewife's purse, to stop the drain away of money and to stop the rise in prices.
Ministers can spend a lot of time, as no doubt, the Chief Secretary will, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor did, in trying to prove, or proving if they can, that there was a rise in prices under the Labour Government, to which we answer that it happened because of special reasons. [Interruption.] The hon. Member was not present when the Chancellor spoke. We say that it happened under us for special reasons. It happened because of the Korean War and because of the aftermath of the Second World War. It did not happen for the first three years that we were in power, but it did happen in the last two or three years, so we say.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the ex-Minister of Civil Aviation failed, the former Minister of Pensions failed and, now, the Chief Secretary, who is back to where he started as Financial Secretary, will say the same thing. He will say, "It has happened under us, but for special reasons." But we on this side were not elected in 1945 on that pledge. The Government were.
The only thing I want to establish about the past is that, having been elected to put it right, the Government have totally failed. Prices, internally, have risen more under them than they did under us, whereas in our time prices externally rose more and in the Government's time prices have externally risen less. So that what we have had is a net loss under them, whereas what the public had under us was a net loss. [Laughter.] Clearly, the House understands the right way round that it should


be. Having established this to the satisfaction of the House, I am delighted to see, let me add that I have a daughter of 26 who represents many millions of voters who will vote for the first time this year.

Sir Cyril Osborne: Not at 26.

Mr. Brown: Yes.
Ministers can spend the whole day proving to those young people that it may be that we on this side did not do as well as we might have done in 1951, but it will not affect them one little bit. It will not affect the housewife in King Street, Belper, one little bit. Her problem is what is happening today, 13 years after the Tories came in.
This afternoon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke as a totally dispirited Minister. All his bouncing now does not alter it. He was a Minister who confessed that he could not stop the uprise of prices and said that he did not know how one could stop it. He said that he did not think that we on this side could stop it. That is a reasonable expression of view from him. He said, however, that he could not stop it. To have a confession by Ministers—this is what the people will be voting about in October—that they do not think that the Opposition are very good, but that they certainly cannot do anything about it themselves, is just about all that we need to establish today.
It is no use telling the housewife in King Street, Belper—or the housewife in Louth—what the Chancellor did this afternoon, that relative to the housewife somewhere else, relative to some other time in history, maybe it is not so bad. What they know is that prices are spiralling, costs are going up—

Sir C. Osborne: So are incomes.

Mr. Brown: —and life for them is getting very much more difficult. [Interruption.] Those hon. Gentlemen over there who only come in late at night to shout, and never attend all day, should behave with a minimum of politeness. They behave like this every time. It is appalling behaviour, but it is all linked up.
Let us be quite clear what the situation is at this moment. It is not only

food prices which are rising—and all because, the Chancellor says, it is June. They are rising for other reasons than that. They are rising because the Government of which he has been and is a member chose to change the agricultural marketing arrangements in order to switch the cost of supporting the farmer from the taxpayer to the consumer and, in consequence, that ended in charging the consumer a lot more and the taxpayer more. This is why food prices are rising. Subsidies have gone up, so have prices, so have the middlemen's charges. The only thing which has not gone up is the supply of our food.
But it is not only that food has gone up. So have rents gone up, and rents have gone up, and are going up, because of deliberate Government policy, because of the Rent Act and because the Government preferred to arrange it so. Rates are going up because of deliberate Government policy. The Chancellor, in answer to a Question the other day, told us by how much per week they are going up and that they are going to go up every year. It is not only because of the interest rates policy. It is because of the bulk grant, the general grant, instead of the specific grants. This is because the Government arranged their relations with local government so that this would happen.
Mortgages are going up. Everybody in Barnet and in Kingston-upon-Thames knows this. Everybody in every commuter area who is buying a house now finds his mortgage going up. Everyone who wants to buy a house now finds that he cannot raise the money to buy a house. Why? Because of deliberate Government policy. This was no accident. They arranged it so.
The cost of travel is going up. Any young couple living in a suburban commuter area just outside London has to pay inflated prices for food, rents and mortgages, rates, and travel. Let us face it: every single one of these things has happened because the Government arranged it so.
I asked a question of the Chancellor, and he thought it better to answer it simply by being rude. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Oh, yes. It is now becoming a regular pattern of behaviour for hon. Members opposite. I asked, "Are you


saying that prices should go up because the reasons are good, or that prices are going up and we cannot stop them? Which is your argument?" He stood on both legs this afternoon. [Laughter.] Half the right hon. Gentleman's speech was because he could not stop it, and the other half was because it was good.
The real answer is that for other reasons, political reasons, the Government have arranged policies that were bound to produce these results. So they have totally failed to honour the pledges on which they were elected, and have organised policies which made it certain that they would not honour those pledges. But to that failure must be added other failures. They have failed to get a growth rate in the economy which would produce either a national income or a public revenue big enough to carry the things that we have to do. Over these 13 years, giving them their best year, giving them the year of which the Chancellor boasted so much, they have got an average of about 2⅓ per cent. increase.
The difference between that and the growth target to which the Chancellor set his own name—4 per cent.—in terms of national income is no less than £5,500 million per year. That is the cost of the additional failure of the Government. In terms of the public revenue it means a loss of £1,500 million a year, and that £1,500 million a year in public revenue with all the tax concessions that have been given in the meantime would pay for a very great deal of the houses, schools, hospitals and other things that we have to do.
Their other big failure is that they have failed to hold prices. Indeed, they have arranged that prices should not be held. They have failed to get the 4 per cent. growth to which they put their names, or, at least, to which the Chancellor put his name, and they have failed to develop new manufacturing industries, failed to get a growing share, even a maintained share, of world trade, failed to get an incomes policy and failed to deal with price fixing and price rigging by the monopolies.
No doubt we shall be told that the Government failed for all kinds of good reasons, but nobody accepted from a Labour Government—why should they?

—the alibi of good reasons. Why should we accept the alibi from the Tories? The fact is that there has been one failure after another. Yet the Tories have had 13 years of complete control in this House and another place to put their policies through.
There is one thing with which I agree in the leader in The Times this morning. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a damned silly leader overall. The one point with which I agree is where it says that, even though the Government may refuse to admit it, the people know that this is true. Nothing has been said today from the Government side of the House which will disturb the people in their understanding that this is the situation. The leader went on to say that the people are not much interested in a sterile argument about whether it is so, because they know it is so, but are much more interested in how to solve it.
This applies not only to the top people to whom The Times talks, but to many other people. It applies to my colleagues in the trade union movement. Not only do they understand what has happened, but they are tremendously concerned about the solution. The problem for them is that the way in which the Government are behaving makes it almost impossible, probably absolutely impossible, for any trade union leader to lead his people in the way that he knows things ought to go.
The Government's interference with arbitration; their rigging of the arbitration courts; the Minister of Labour's descent from the high level set by his predecessors to a political interpretation of his Ministry; the attack upon the weakest members of society—all these things have made it extremely difficult for responsible union leaders, who know what the problem is and that the solution of it is the biggest issue facing us, to be able to lead their people the way they should go.
It may be true that no Government have yet succeeded in this. I will not bandy words on it. I care not what was said about us in 1945 to 1951. Queen Anne is dead and so is 1945–51. [Interruption.] I will settle for the millions of voters, who are little concerned with that. It may be true that no Government have


yet succeeded in this, but what I do declare is that it is not true that the job cannot be done. It can be done and must be done.
What is involved? What are the public concerned about? I remind hon. Members that we do not, as we sometimes think, talk here as though this were an Oxford Union debate. We are speaking tonight for the outside world. What do the people think is involved in this problem? Perhaps, as always, it is better to start with the reverse question—what is not involved?
What must not be involved is picking on the weaker sections of the community. The Government must not pick on wage and salary earners like those public servants who have the least bargaining power. The Government picked on the nurses. They are now picking on the postmen. But in the end they had to give way to the nurses and in the end they will have to give way to the postmen.
The Government will have to give way because one cannot, in a democracy, even if one is as power-drunk as this Government, stand finally against public opinion—and public opinion, which was with the nurses, is with the postmen. As the Chancellor himself knows, the Government would have liked to have made an offer of 6 per cent., but, instead, had to make it 4 per cent. because of some complicated reason.
But when the Government have gone through this exercise, what have they achieved? They have made the nurses and now the postmen angry. They have, in doing so, read a lecture to every salary and wage earning group. They have told them that unless they have bargaining power, and use it, the Government will grind them down. The Government have said to them, "Get in and fight first".
That is the tragedy and that is what makes things so difficult for those of us who know that an answer to the problem must be found. I say not merely to the Government but to the country that the incoming Government will have to work very hard indeed to restore the good will of organised salary and wage earners that this Administration have so wantonly destroyed.
Now, what is involved? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Do not let hon. Members play the fool. They know me

better than that. What I have just said is a good deal more serious than if some hon. Members opposite had stood up and said it. I accept that whatever we do to try to control the price situation and prevent a continuous rise in prices must involve a degree of Government intervention at a number of points. I think that this is what hon. Members opposite have been playing for all day. This is the political point that they would like to make. For what it is worth, I give it to them.
It must involve that intervention, but that does not mean the immature Tory slogan which the Conservative Central Office is no doubt ready to use—"Somebody in Whitehall telling you what to do." We have to face the fact that a Parliamentary democracy, as we are, needs disciplines, too. A Parliamentary democracy cannot be run without disciplines, any more than any other kind of society can be run without disciplines. The difference is that, in our case, consultation, representation and participation will be necessary if we are to do the job and we are to encourage acceptance by all sections of the community of Government intervention, if by "Government intervention" we mean the Government's moulding of the voluntary acceptance of the disciplines by the groups in the community who are concerned. Unless we accept that, we have to face the fact that the job cannot be done, in which case we are inviting the country to choose some other system of government.
The present Ministers have failed because, among other reasons, they have not accepted that. We do not pretend to our followers and friends that it can be done unless we accept it. We shall say that absolutely clearly. I do not believe that it is true that the workers will not voluntarily accept disciplines, provided that there are the pre-conditions of prior consultation, representation and participation. On that basis, where are the places where intervention by the Government is inescapable; where are the points for acceptance of the disciplines?
The first is in the planning of the economy nationally and regionally. Those are not distinctive words. We cannot have a Minister going to Newcastle and doing something for the North-East while


someone produces a totally contrary paper for the South-East. We cannot have a forecast for the nation as a whole, produced by N.E.D.C., unless it is understood that the nation consists of a number of regions and that the whole plan has to be broken down among the regions and fitted into the regions. Secondly, it means changing the machinery of government. At present, there is not on the Treasury Bench or in the Cabinet Room machinery of government which can do this centrally and there is none which can do it regionally. That machinery must be set up.
Thirdly, the sectors of growth in terms of industrial effort must be chosen. Whether one likes it or not, it is no use saying that this means getting too involved. Unless someone does this, the growth is likely to be too haphazard, if it occurs at all. The industries for growth have to be chosen and one then has to decide on the ways in which to assist the export industries—how to assist them, which they are and what kind of inducements they shall have.
In a voluntary democracy, in a mixed economy—and it is a mixed economy now and it will be a mixed economy tomorrow, even though the frontiers may change—we have somehow to channel investment into those areas where it has to go to enable the plan to work. Regional authorities for industrial and social development have to be established.
It is no use talking about getting industry to the North-East if the Ministers of Education, Housing, Health, and Transport, are arranging their policies as though they were not on speaking terms with the other fellow. One has to face changes in the tax structure so that responsibility and effort are rewarded and so that earning is rewarded instead of something else.
It is very easy to make political points about this, but no Government will do the job unless they accept that manual workers, supervisory workers, managers, younger directors, and the people whom we want to do more are those whom the present structure penalises. That has to be changed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have to accept that, too. We cannot change that unless we accept changes somewhere else. too. There is no use being silly about this.
Secondly, we must have an employment policy which backs us up. The Minister of Labour distinguished himself this weekend with an outburst about a wash-out. I gather than he had thought of it, and that made it a wash-out. The point is that unless we deal—as the Government have not done—with unemployment pay, with sick pay and training, and how to encourage employees—and this does not mean manual workers alone; indeed, it probably means other grades of workers more in the first instance; for example, the man with a pensionable job, and the man who is already buying his house—to go somewhere else, or be trained for some other job, or move into some other industry, we shall not get this industrial revolution going, and if we do not succeed in that, we shall not tackle the prices problem.

Sir C. Osborne: How would the right hon. Gentleman do it?

Mr. Brown: I am not trying to dodge the issue. I set all this out in the Financial Times. If the hon. Gentleman reads it there and then comes to talk to me about it, I shall explain it to him. We must have that, and it does not exist. Our severance pay proposals, as well as our training proposals, which are set out in our charter, are inescapable.
Thirdly, we must have an incomes policy. I do not run away from these things. I have had nearly 40 years in this business. I have to explain this to people who matter, not to people like hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have to carry this with my members, and that is a bigger job than carrying it with hon. Gentlemen opposite. We must have an incomes policy. My colleagues know it. My members know it. But we cannot have an incomes policy simply on the basis of a device for holding back postmen whose take-home pay is about £11 a week.
There is a letter in The Times today, pointing out how much it costs a person to live. Do not let anyone imagine that restricting the pay of postmen to about £11 a week is an incomes policy. An incomes policy means dealing with correlated issues. It means dealing with land prices, and land speculation. It means dealing with rents, with profits, and with all correlated issues. If that is


done, we can speak to our people about an incomes policy and their part in it—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are our people, too."] All right, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that they are their people, too, why do they treat them like they are treating them now? If we deal with correlated issues we can produce an incomes policy. All I say is that this is the third leg of the problem. It is the third area in which the Government have totally failed.
The fourth leg—and I must finish quickly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] If hon. Members say that, I will not. We have put up with this rudeness over and over again. [Interruption.] The last time I had to wind up a debate, the Minister concerned went on and on for 12 minutes over his time. If hon. Members opposite want to be rude it is easy: I shall continue. I am ready to play to the rules so long as proper regard is had for them.
Fourthly, we must have an attack on food prices. I tell the Chancellor—who played with this point so ineffectually for 15 minutes—that, of course, it means new forms of marketing; of course it means long-term bulk buying overseas, through commodity commissions—

Brigadier Terence Clarke: Groundnuts!

Mr. Brown: —and, of course, it means a more orderly system of internal food marketing, through marketing boards. It is inescapable. Ministers are entitled to say that they do not accept this; that it is merely a Socialist view, and that they oppose it. But the House and the country must realise that the Conservatives have failed and that we might have a chance of success.
I am astonished at the Chancellor's attitude, first, to the price and cost situation and, secondly, to the economic situation and especially to the external trade and payments situation. My guess is that he is dodging, hoping to escape, gambling on the election beating the real danger, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said. My guess is that the Government are already making use of their fall-back areas.
Our problem is that we must not say too much about this in case we worsen

the situation for our nation. I want hon. Members opposite to understand—and I want the Chancellor to understand—that we know how the Government are getting through at the moment. We know, and he knows that we know, how dangerous the situation is, and the nation knows that the Government have totally failed after 13 years of complete power.

9.37 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) began his speech with a personal compliment, the reply to which I could have spared him if he had allowed me a little more time to reply. To be called "brass-faced" by the right hon. Gentleman I find a singularly delicate and attractive compliment. After all, it comes from an expert source. Throughout the right hon. Gentleman's speech there ran—and "ran" is the word—two main themes. The first was that 1951 was, like Queen Anne, dead, and that nobody was interested in what happened when there was a Labour Government.
It was rather curious how the right hon. Gentleman came back to that theme at a later part of his speech, as if the idea was rather worrying him. I think that he is wrong when he says that the lady in King Street, Belper, is not interested in what happened under a Labour Government, for this reason: the lady in King Street, Belper, and about 32 million other people will this autumn—with due respect to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—have to make their choice between a Labour and a Conservative Government.
I believe that just as any thinking person judges not only by what people say but by what they did when they had the opportunity—[Interruption.] The lady in King Street, Belper, will be very interested in what the Labour Government did and did not do. Indeed, when the House looks at this in the ordinary way in which ordinary people make up their minds, hon. Members will be aware that what people did when they previously were entrusted with confidence is a very important fact indeed. If the right hon. Member for Belper does not think that people are interested in it, he will have no objection to our referring


to it and we will see, in the event, who is right.
The other theme was that he accepted, and I was glad to note this, that an incomes policy was essential to both stability in prices and continued expansion. However, he proceeded to say that all sorts of things would have to happen before such an incomes policy would be acceptable; in particular, he said that there would have to be some form of planning, about which he had apparently said something at the weekend but, unfortunately, did not have time to describe it to the House tonight. It sounded to me as though he was expounding precious like what was attempted and failed between 1945 and 1951—[Interruption.]—and the very words he used came from his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) at that time.
Thus the crucial point which the right hon. Gentleman did not bring out, no doubt inadvertently, was this. Is this overall planning to which he referred to be on a voluntary basis, as in N.E.D.C., or compulsory? Is his choosing of industries for growth to be done by the Government? Is it to be imposed, compulsorily, on the community—or is it to be done in cooperation, as in N.E.D.C.? Apparently the right hon. Gentleman did not have time to tell us—[Interruption.]—but if we are to be satisfied that this is any more than the 1945–51 mixture, cooked up again, he will have to tell us more about it.
I resented what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Government having sought to grind down certain sections of the community. That is wholly untrue, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the very real problems that exist in fixing remuneration, whether in the public service or elsewhere. To say, as he did—speaking from that Box, with all the responsibility which rests on someone who speaks from there—that we picked out certain named sections of the community to be ground down is wholly untrue and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. G. Brown: I repeat it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the next part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman

asked us to refer to the Motion, advice which he himself did not follow. I will. The Motion consists of three propositions containing an increasing degree of inaccuracy as one proceeds. The first is that there has been an increase in the cost of living, the second that this has endangered our overseas trade, and the third that it has caused hardship to all sections of the community.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor dealt fully, clearly, and effectively with the first part. It is plain to all that the cost of living is not completely within the control of any Government. [Interruption.] It is affected—and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made great play with this in defence of the Labour Government—by import prices and by the degree to which a sensible incomes policy is accepted by all sections of the community, as the right hon. Gentleman accepted a few moments ago. Therefore, to say that it is completely within the control of Government is not arguable by the party opposite. Indeed, it is certainly a wrong criticism, and an invalid criticism, to say of any Government that a change in the cost of living is a condemnation of that Government's handling of affairs.
The fairer test is a comparison with what has happened in other countries—the "league table", about which I shall say something in a moment—or with what has happened in the same country under other Administrations. That is the right test. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that he had produced all the international league tables. He had not, because although he made a very long speech it was not as long as that. But it is important in this connection to take the comparisons with foreign countries in recent years—during the periods, that is, when the policy of this Government has come to fruition—[HON. MEMBERS: "1951."]—and is comparable, therefore, fairly with what happens in other countries.
Let us take food prices, which are the most important to the ordinary citizen. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reminded the House that between 1956 and 1963 food prices in the United Kingdom rose 11½ per cent. Since then, those in Sweden have risen by 34 per cent. and those in France by 48 per cent. Or


taking even—and this is a comparison against myself—a comparison with those other countries for a shorter period—1958–63—food prices in Denmark, a food producer, have risen 23 per cent., against our 11½ per cent. over a longer period; the Netherlands by 15 per cent.; Italy by 12 per cent., and the highly competitive economy of Western Germany by 12 per cent.—against our 11½ per cent. over a longer period.
Or let us compare, if the House prefers, the experience in this country under another Government. Here, again, it is accepted that the Labour Government did not have complete control, but on 6th February, 1946, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) used these historic words—and I do not think that the right hon. Member for Belper will laugh when he hears them. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The House will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed the Government's intention to hold the cost of living at about 31 per cent. over the September, 1939, level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1742.]
The House will now be aware that before that Government left office the cost of living had risen by 36 per cent. above the level of that on the date on which the right hon. Gentleman gave that pledge. In that period of Labour Government the country endured the most rapid rise overall in the cost of living of any period.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor reminded the House that during the 6¼ years of Socialist Government the average increase in the index of retail prices was 6½ per cent. a year. For the first 6¼ years of Conservative Government it fell to 4½ per cent. a year and, in the second, it fell to 2½ per cent. a year. It is, therefore, a fact, and relevant to any consideration of this Government's record in this matter, that our record in recent years is better than that of most of our rivals abroad, and incomparably better than that of the Government of the party opposite.
Then there is the proposition that this is causing hardship to all sections of the community. Here I would remind the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), who was Secretary of State for Scotland in the late Administration and who was very angry earlier today with my right hon. Friend for basing his

calculations on changes since 1951, that the Motion put down by right hon. Gentlemen opposite itself invokes 1951 as the appropriate time by which to judge the relative records of the two Governments. The picture today of hardship inflicted on all sections of the comunity is simply incredible to anyone capable of going out into the streets and seeing the conditions in which people live. There are, of course, sections of people on fixed incomes, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is so valuable a champion, who are facing real difficulties, but to say that all sections of our prosperous community are suffering hardship is as unreal as the observation of the Leader of the Opposition the other day about twelve wasted years.
I will take some of those sections. From October, 1951, to October, 1963, to take the wage-earners, the cost of living has risen 50 per cent., but average wages for male adult workers in industry have risen 70 per cent. and average earnings 101 per cent. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite want the contrast, under the Labour Government the cost of living rose 41 per cent., but average earnings rose by only 37 per cent. One hon. Member referred with a sneer to the people who benefited in these years as being what he called the "Blooms" and the "Ferrantis". This, of course, is not the fact. In 1951–52 in the range of income before tax of between £750 and £1,000 a year there were 819,000 people. The latest figure we have for the slightly narrower range of £800 to £1,000 for these people is nearly 4 million—the number has multiplied by 5.
Moving up the income scale the increase is even more striking. Between 1951 and 1952 there were 420,000 people in the bracket between £1,000 and £1,500 a year. By 1961–62 that number had multiplied by 8 times to 3,400,000. These figures will be greater today than in 1961–62. This represents a massive improvement in the standard of life of a very large number of people which is utterly inconsistent with the suggestion in the Motion about widespread hardship through all sections of the community.
Next, to take pensions. In the 1959 election we pledged ourselves to give the pensioner a share in increasing prosperity. We have more than implemented


that pledge. Since 1959 wage rates have gone up 16·6 per cent., earnings 21·7 per cent., retail prices 15 per cent. and the single rate of retirement pension 35 per cent., and the married rate 36½ per cent.
On taxation, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) referred to the suggestion that the burden of taxation had been increased. It has nothing of the sort. If the rates of taxation existing in 1951 had been maintained, the total yield of taxation today would be something like £1,000 million a year more than it is, and the tax adjustments which have been made have been very closely related to improving the position of people on the lower end of the income scale. The married man with income all-earned begins paying tax today at £440. He began at £240 in 1951. A married man with two children on £12 a week paid £38 10s. a year in tax in 1951. Today he pays nothing. Old people have had their special additional provision, the age exemption, to improve their position.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East charged us with having no compassion. Let me tell him plainly what we have done in respect of pension rates. The real value of the retirement pension is up 50 per cent. above the level at which hon. Members opposite left it, and the provision—I ask the House to note this—for a widowed mother with three children is up 118 per cent. in real terms above the level at which it was left in 1951.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made a very curious argument about his party's record on pensions and social benefits.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry, I cannot give way. The right hon. Gentleman took seven minutes of my time and the hon. Gentleman never gave way at all.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out, perfectly fairly, that it fell to his Government to introduce the National Insurance Act, 1946. But he forgot some things. He forgot, first of all, that that was the product of the war-time coalition Government and that whichever Government

had come to power at that time would have introduced it. He forgot a more important thing. He forgot the fact that whereas the pension was fixed at 26s. a week in 1946, during the whole remaining five and a quarter years of office of that Government it never again had the same purchasing power. Even when, on the verge of the General Election in 1951, some pensioners received a 4s. increase, that increase did not of itself even restore by some 3s. 6d. the 1946 purchasing value. To contrast that with what has been done under this Government to improve the position of the pensioner speaks for itself.
Then the hon. Gentleman indulged in an ingenious excuse, but for once it was a new one. He sought to explain the failure of the Labour Government to hold the cost of living, the failure to protect the pensioner, the failure to expand the social services, by the fact that Lend-Lease was withdrawn in the first few months of that Government. That sounds very interesting until one recalls that within a month or two, in December, 1945, the hon. Gentleman's Government received the help of the American and Canadian loans—3,500 million dollars from the United States and 1,250 million dollars from the Canadians—the capital of which, by a curious coincidence, only became repayable in December 1951. If the hon. Gentleman is to introduce the end of Lend-Lease, it would be fair of him to acknowledge the massive support which this country under a Labour Government received from the Americans and the Canadians.
The original Motion has an agreeable audacity about it in these circumstances. It gambles on the shortness of memory of the British people. The right hon. Member for Belper had a little fun about the hole in the housewife's purse. That hole is a great deal smaller than it was. Neither the past record, nor the present performance and, still less, the future proposals which we have heard tonight encourage the housewife to think that there would be any help—

Mr. Herbert W. Bowden: Mr. Herbert W. Bowden (Leicester, South-West) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question: —

The House divided: Ayes 230 Noes 289.

Division No. 137.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Ainsley, William
Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Albu, Austen
Healey, Denis
Parker, John


Alldritt, W. H.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pavitt, Laurence


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hilton, A. V.
Peart, Frederick


Barnett, Guy
Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hooson, H. E.
Popplewell, Ernest


Beaney, Alan
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Howie, W.
Proctor, W. T.


Benson, Sir- George
Hoy, James H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, Harry


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Boston, T. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Reynolds, G. W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, H.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowles, Frank
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Boyden, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bradley, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Callaghan, James
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
King, Dr. Horace
Small, William


Cliffe, Michael
Lawson, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collick, Percy
Ledger, Ron
Snow, Julian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cronin, John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Crosland, Anthony
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Steele, Thomas


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lipton, Marcus
Stonehouse, John


Dalyell, Tam
Loughlin, Charles
Stones, William


Darling, George
Lubbock, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McBride, N.
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCann, J.
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacColl, James
Symonds, J. B.


Deer, George
MacDermot, Niall
Taverne, D.


Dempsey, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dodds, Norman
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Doig, Peter
McLeavy, Frank
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Driberg, Tom
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, Archie
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Albert
Mapp, Charles
Warbey, William


Fernyhough, E.
Marsh, Richard
Watkins, Tudor


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan
Mayhew, Christopher
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mellish, R. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foley, Maurice
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitlock, William


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Millan, Bruce
Wigg, George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Milne, Edward
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, Walter
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moody, A. S.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Frederick
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
O'Malley, B. K.
Zilliacus, K.


Gunter, Ray
Oswald, Thomas



Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Owen, Will
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Padley, W. E.
Mr. Short and Mr. Rogers.


Hannan, William
Paget, R. T.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Freeth, Denzil
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, s.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maddan, Martin


Allason, James
Gammans, Lady
Maginnis, John E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Gardner, Edward
Maitland, Sir John


Anderson, D. C.
Gibson-Watt, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Marlowe, Anthony


Ashton, Sir Herbert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Atkins, Humphrey
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Marshall, Sir Douglas


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Marten, Neil


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Barlow, Sir John
Goodhart, Philip
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Barter, John
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)


Batsford, Brian
Gough, Frederick
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Berkeley, Humphry
Green, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Stratton


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus


Bingham, R. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morgan, William


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Box, Donald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hay, John
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Braine, Bernard
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Brewis, John
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hendry, Forbes
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bryan, Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buck, Antony
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bullard, Denys
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Partridge, E.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hocking, Philip N.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Campbell, Gordon
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Peel, John


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Hollingworth, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cary, Sir Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chataway, Christopher
Hornby, R. P.
Pitt, Dame Edith


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pounder, Rafton


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cleaver, Leonard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Cole, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cooper, A. E.
Jackson, John
Pym, Francis


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
James, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jennings, J. C.
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Cordle, John
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Crawley, Aldan
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridsdale, Julian


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Curran, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Roots, William


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lagden, Godfrey
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, Sir Ronald


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Leavey, J. A.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Seymour, Leslie


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharples, Richard


Drayson, G. B.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Shepherd, William


Eden, Sir John
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Elliot, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longbottom, Charles
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, Rupert


Fell, Anthony
Loveys, Walter H.
Stainton, Keith


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stevens, Geoffrey


Forrest, George
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stodart, J. A.


Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir Malcolm


Fraser, Rt. Hon. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Studholme, Sir Henry




Summers, Sir Spencer
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Whitelaw, William


Talbot, John E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Tapsell, Peter
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Turner, Colin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wise, A. R.


Teeling, Sir William
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Temple, John M.
Walder, David
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Walker, Peter
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Woollam, John


Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Webster, David



Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wells, John (Maidstone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill

Question put, That the proposed words be there added: —

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 228.

Division No. 138.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Jackson, John


Allason, James
Doughty, Charles
James, David


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, J. C.


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Eden, Sir John
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Balniel, Lord
Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Barlow, Sir John
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Barter, John
Farr, John
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Batsford, Brian
Fell, Anthony
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kimball, Marcus


Berkeley, Humphry
Foster, Sir John
Kirk, Peter


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Kitson, Timothy


Biffen, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lagden, Godfrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Freeth, Denzil
Lambton, Viscount


Bingham, R. M.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Birch, Rt. Hon, Nigel
Gammans, Lady
Leavey, J. A.


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Gardner, Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Black, Sir Cyril
Gibson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Box, Donald
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Braine, Bernard
Goodhart, Philip
Longbottom, Charles


Brewis, John
Goodhew, Victor
Longden, Gilbert


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Gough, Frederick
Loveys, Walter H.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gower, Raymond
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bryan, Paul
Green, Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Buck, Antony
Gresham Cooke, R.
McLaren, Martin


Bullard, Denys
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley R.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Campbell, Gordon
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maddan, Martin


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maginnis, John E.


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Sir John


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Chataway, Christopher
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marlowe, Anthony


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hastings, Stephen
Marshall, Sir Douglas


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hay, John
Marten, Neil


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Cleaver, Leonard
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meridan)


Cole, Norman
Hendry, Forbes
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)


Cooke, Robert
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Cooper, A. E.
Hiley, Joseph
Mawby, Ray


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C.


Corfield, F. V.
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Stratton


Costain, A. P.
Hocking, Philip N.
Miscampbell, Norman


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Montgomery, Fergus


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Crawley, Aldan
Hollingworth, John
Morgan, William


Critchley, Julian
Hopkins, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hornby, R. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Crowder, F, P.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Mott-Radcliffe, Sir Charles


Curran, Charles
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Neave, Airey


Dance, James
Hughes-Young, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Iremonger, T. L.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard




Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Roots, William
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Seymour, Leslie
Turner, Colin


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Sharples, Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Partridge, E.
Shepherd, William
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Peel, John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Walder, David


Percival, Ian
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Walker, Peter


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wall, Patrick


Pitt, Dame Edith
Speir, Rupert
Ward, Dame Irene


Pounder, Rafton
Stainton, Keith
Webster, David


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Whitelaw, William


Prior, J. M. L.
Stodart, J. A.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pym, Francis
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wise, A. R.


Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Talbot, John E.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Tapsell, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Woollam, John


Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Teeling, Sir William
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Temple, John M.



Ridsdale, Julian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Diamond, John
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Ainsley, William
Dodds, Norman
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Albu, Austen
Doig, Peter
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Aldritt, W. H.
Driberg, Tom
Janner, Sir Barnett


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, George


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Barnett, Guy
Evans, Albert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Beaney, Alan
Finch, Harold
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fitch, Alan
Kelley, Richard


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Eric
Kenyon, Clifford


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foley, Maurice
King, Dr. Horace


Benson, Sir George
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lawson, George


Blackburn, F.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Ledger, Ron


Blyton, William
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Boardman, H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Boston, T. G.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
George, LadyMegan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Bowles, Frank
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Boyden, James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Loughlin, Charles


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gourlay, Harry
Lubbock, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Grey, Charles
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McBride, N.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
McCann, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gunter, Ray
MacColl, James


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
MacDermott, Niall


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Gregor


Callaghan, James
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Carmichael, Neil
Hayman, F. H.
McLeavy, Frank


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Healey, Denis
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cliffe, Michael
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Collick, Percy
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Manuel, Archie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hilton, A. V.
Mapp, Charles


Cronin, John
Holman, Percy
Marsh, Richard


Crosland, Anthony
Hooson, H. E.
Mason, Roy


Crossman, R. H. S.
Houghton, Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Mellish, R. J.


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mendelson, J. J.


Darling, George
Howie, W.
Millan, Bruce


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hoy, James H.
Milne, Edward


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchison, G. R.


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Monslow, Walter


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Deer, George
Hunter, A. E.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dempsey, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moyle, Arthur




Mulley, Frederick
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


O'Malley, B. K.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Oswald, Thomas
Ross, William
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Owen, Will
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Thornton, Ernest


Padley, w. E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wade, Donald


Paget, R. T.
Silkin, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Warbey, William


Pargiter, G. A.
Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor


Parker, John
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Weitzman, David


Parkin, B. T.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pavitt, Laurence
Small, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Whitlock, William


Peart, Frederick
Snow, Julian
Wigg, George


Pentland, Norman
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Popplewell, Ernest
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Srank
Willey, Frederick


Prentice, R. E.
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Steele, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Probert, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Proctor, W. T.
Stonehouse, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Stones, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Randall, Harry
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Woof, Robert


Rankin, John
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Redhead, E. C.
Swain, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Reynolds, G. W.
Swingler, Stephen
Zilliacus, K.


Rhodes, H.
Symonds, J. B.



Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taverne, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Rogers.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House supports the economic and financial policies of Her Majesty's Government designed to secure growth without inflation, and welcomes the greater stability in prices of recent years and the high level of employment and living standards as evidence of the success of these policies.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the British North America Bill and the Spray Irrigation

(Scotland) Bill [Lords], on the Lords Amendments to the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill, the Riding Establishments Bill and the Trading Stamps Bill, and on the New Forest Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SPRAY IRRIGATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 17th July].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 6.—(REVOCATION AND VARIATION OF LICENCES.)

10.25 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, at the end to insert
After a second conviction, the licence shall be revoked".
We return again to something we made rather a meal of on Friday. Subsection (1) says:
A river purification board may revoke a licence granted by them under this Act if the holder is convicted of an offence under section 2 of this Act in connection with that licence.
Our Amendment would stipulate that
… the licence shall be revoked".
Under the Clause, an offence of abstracting water outwith the conditions of a licence carries with it a penalty on summary conviction of up to £50. This is relatively serious, and while it may be right to give discretionary power to the board in these circumstances to revoke the licence of a first offender, it would be reasonable to suggest that, for a second conviction, the licence must be revoked. That is why we would change the emphasis from the word "may" to the word "shall" in relation to a second conviction.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I understand the purpose of the Amendment, but I would point out to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) the circumstances that might arise. It is possible that two offences might occur quite unintentionally—for instance, through failure to turn off a pump for some reason, such as illness, or through an unintentional error by an employee of the farmer. We think, therefore, that, since there might be circumstances where technically there were two convictions, but where there was really no intent to defraud, we should allow the board discretion. I suggest that the Amendment be not pressed.

Mr. Ross: That reply is unconvincing. All that the hon. Gentleman suggests is that there may be convictions based on what were really not offences. But, as he knows, all prosecutions in cases like this will be mounted by the Procurator Fiscal. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Crown Office would permit the matter to come to trial in such circumstances as he mentions? I am sure that it would not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a far better reason than this for arguing that discretion should be maintained for the board when someone has really committed a second offence. I do not think that there will be convictions or even charges in the sort of case which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned for what, after all, will be technical offences. Bearing in mind how justice is administered in Scotland, this is most unlikely. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can do better than that.

Mr. G. Campbell: I was giving examples to show what could happen. The river purification board would be able to take into account the character of the offence of which the court had convicted someone, and we feel that it is better to leave it with the discretion to decide in what circumstances revocation should take place.

Amendment negatived.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out subsection (2).
The subsection gives another discretionary power to the board when the holder of a licence applies for a variation in the amount of water which may be abstracted. What troubles me is the possibility of a variation for an increase in the amount of water. Remembering that this is an annual licence and that the application may follow after a decision which had gone all through the appeal stages right to the Secretary of State, and remembering the amount of time provided by Clause 4(2), this will not be a quick procedure. In fact, it will be clumsy. Clause 4(2) provides for time for objections, which may be a month, and then there is the possibility of an appeal to the Secretary of State, which may take another month. Considering what is involved, it seems silly to have this provision in the Bill at all.
Certainly, there should be power to vary, although I cannot see anyone applying for a decrease—no one would want to prevent a farmer from taking less water. This is a rather half-baked provision and it is a pity that we do not have more time between now and Report to consider why the subsection is here at all. My reading of it may be wrong, but I shall be happy to have my ignorance dispelled by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. G. Campbell: The kind of case which we have particularly in mind is where a farm changes hands during the calendar year. The previous farmer may not have gone in for spray irrigation on a large scale and may have applied for a fairly small amount of water. The river in question may have plenty of water and that farmer might have had his application granted in full. The new farmer may wish to irrigate on a larger scale and there might be no difficulty about granting his application for a larger amount.
In a change of tenure of that kind there should be some procedure to allow the incoming farmer, within the calendar year, if he wishes to do more spray irrigation than his predecessor to be able to apply if the situation seems to be such that there is no objection to his having extra water.
The procedure under Clause 4(2) is foreshortened compared with that under Clause 3. For example, the time is 14 rather than 28 days and the applicant farmer has himself to take on the responsibility of publishing notices. To take on that responsibility and to put the procedure into action he would have to be someone who particularly wanted this extra water.
I hope that by giving this example I shall have shown the hon. Gentleman the kind of situation which we have in mind.

Mr. Ross: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he picks a situation and says, "Here is a river with plenty of water". In that case there would not be any licensing at all, because the whole basis of licensing is to safeguard the supplies of water. It is most likely in that type of case that it would not be in a control area. If there are

licences, they are based on the expectation of shortages and the possibility of wholesale abstraction leading to the worsening of the position with regard to pollution, fishing, and so on.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should think about this again. It will still not be an easy matter, because 14 days are to be allowed in the first instance, and then the board will have 28 days in which to come to its decision. In a case like that, will there still be an appeal to the Secretary of State? If so, there will be another considerable lapse of time before it takes effect.
When we bear in mind the fact that spray irrigation is used during a particular period of the year, I think we realise that the dangers and difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred will not create hardship. The person concerned will know what he is buying when he buys the farm. It is a pity that we have not had more time in which to discuss transfers, and so on. I do not think that this discretionary power is worth arguing about to that extent. We are going out of our way to make it easy for the river purification boards to make these variations—[Interruption.] I do not know whether this party meeting is finished. I shall gladly resume my seat if I am interrupting a meeting. Perhaps the Deputy Chief Whip would like us to clear out. I hope that our presence here is not embarrassing him. It is interesting to note that we have company tonight. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not keep us company on Friday. If the hon. Lady wishes to make a speech, I shall be delighted to give way to her.
I do not think that we need to give this power. I think that there are more dangers in giving it than there are benefits in relation to the imagined situation which the hon. Gentleman has presented.

Mr. G. Campbell: Perhaps I might be able to make it a little clearer to the hon. Gentleman by saying that it is not a situation of complete abundance of water in the river. It is a situation where there is a river and where there are times when there is a shortage of water and a control order has been made. There may be a year in which there is quite a lot


of water in the river and there would be no objection to a larger amount being made available for the land in question.

Mr. Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this is covered by another Clause which we shall discuss later? When there is an abundance of water, the board itself has power to vary the order without any application from anybody. I do not want to intrude on the discussions that we are to have later, but it is interesting to note that in that case everybody has to be dealt with in the same way.
This is a special variation for one particular person. I do not think that we should give this special power to vary upwards in relation to one particular person. The hon. Gentleman says that this power will apply only in particular cases, but it does not say that in the Bill, and it is on the provisions of the Bill that the boards will be able to exercise their powers.

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to a later Clause which allows for suspension or allotment of larger amounts right across the board to all those who have licences in situations of abundance.
I was trying to explain that this was a situation where, as the hon. Member said, an individual is concerned, and where there may not be conditions of great abundance of water but none the less quite enough water for the applicant to be granted an upward variation without any damage to other interests. This is part of the flexibility which we want to have in the Bill, not only to deal with the situation in a later Clause, but to deal with the situation of an individual applicant who, in the situation I gave as an example, might be someone who had come into a farm during the course of a calendar year.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the procedure, although specially foreshortened in these circumstances, contains provision for an appeal to the Secretary of State, so that there is a lot of procedure for the applicant to go through. Therefore, he will not lightly apply. He has to take responsibility for publishing notices, and he must go through this procedure. That will surely ensure that frivolous applications will not come forward. They

will all be serious ones, and it will be up to the board to decide whether or not to grant them.
We feel that this is an important element in the Bill, which provides greater flexibility, and I hope that in the circumstances the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I have one or two questions. We are concerned about subsection (2) because we recognise that it deals with the case of varying a licence in respect of a farmer taking over from an original applicant. But the subsection goes rather further than that. The abstraction can be increased. In some cases the abstraction will be gravitation and in others by pumping, but what we are not happy about is the fact that it appears, from what knowledge we can obtain about spray irrigation, that there is a distinct possibility that this will be used more and more widely. The application of science to agriculture and horticulture has clearly demonstrated that spray irrigation will develop, and it may happen that a greater abstraction may be permitted under the variation of a licence.
I take it that the amounts to be abstracted will be geared to drought conditions, although I recognise that in time of drought other action can be taken. But it must be borne in mind that in some cases we shall be concerned with merely a stream, which may have a fair amount of water in it at some periods and not much at others. In years to come other people may have a need for water, for agriculture or other farming purposes.
We must be careful not to land ourselves in the position of creating a situation in which a few farmers will be placed in a very favourable position to produce crops at the right time and at a high price, while others will not be able to do so because they will not have an opportunity to abstract water, because the limit has already been abstracted. Should we not consider this matter further to ensure that a board will satisfy itself that other developments will be possible further down the stream; in other words, to ensure that farmers are treated fairly and that the plums are not all given to farmers up stream and none to those down stream?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: That point is covered by the fact that licences last for only one calendar year. At the beginning of each year the whole position is reconsidered. We discussed this issue on Friday, when an Opposition Amendment was moved to extend that period to three years. We agreed, in the event, to keep it at one year.
We recognise that this new technique of spray irrigation may spread and we have no intention that a few farmers should get in at the beginning and that the water should then be limited for their use. I urge the hon. Member to imagine a farmer, perhaps in his constituency, if there is a control area, and that farmer decides to go into a new farm. If he wants to set up a lot of spray irrigation equipment and finds that because this Amendment was accepted he could not do anything for another year, he would not be very pleased.
We would like to safeguard the position of that farmer, and that is why we hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The subsection we are discussing seems to make nonsense of Clause 3 of the Bill, because it permits the procedures outlined in that Clause to be undertaken at any time of the year. I wonder why the Bill goes to the trouble, in Clause 3. of laying down specific dates and procedures for the granting of licences, for according to the subsection under discussion anyone may go through the same procedure at any time.

Mr. G. Campbell: I explained that this procedure is different because the applicant must take on the responsibility of publishing notices himself, apart from the difference in timing.

Mr. Willis: I do not see any difference in timing. The subsection merely states:
A river purification board may on the application of the holder of a licence vary that licence; and, where the effect of the variation would be to increase the quantity of water authorised to be abstracted, the provisions of section 3 as read with section 4(2) of this Act shall apply with any necessary modifications to the application for variation and to the variation of the licence as they apply to applications for, and the grant of. licences under that section.
I cannot see any difference there, unless a modification has been made;

and there is no reference to any modification. I still think that my interpretation is correct and that anyone can apply at any time to abstract additional quantities of water from a river or stream. Does that not make nonsense of Clause 3?
What are the variations? How is it proposed to vary Clause 3, or, for that matter, Clause 4(2)? If it is proposed to vary, why is it not in this Clause? What form are the variations to take? Are they to be put in a statutory regulation, or are they just to be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State or the river purification boards? Who makes the variations, what variations can they make, and to whom are they responsible in respect of those variations? All these seem to be very relevant questions, and should be answered.
My only comfort in relation to subsection (2) is that, because of the time factor, it is not likely to operate very often. We know the time of year when farms are sold and, knowing that, it seems to me that this Clause will not often operate. Nevertheless, these points should be clarified.

Mr. Manuel: Before the Under-Secretary replies, may I say that I was aware of the licence being in force for one year, but what I asked was that where licences were granted and abstraction was taking place—

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Sir William. I wonder whether you would direct that the meeting of scrap metal dealers be held outside, or on the other side of the Bar of the House?

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Sir Donald Kaberry: No class distinction.

Mr. Manuel: I think that we would have proceeded much better if a Committee Room had been picked for this whips' meeting, or whatever it is, and so allowed us to get on with this Scottish business, which is not unimportant.
Admitting that the licences are for one year only, if, in subsequent years, licences are asked for, would it not be very difficult if the previous licences had to be revoked in order to give those subsequent applicants a share of the water


available from that stream? Did the Under-Secretary mean that if we were taking water up to a maximum from a particular stream, with upward variations of abstraction, to allow other and subsequent abstracters to get a licence to compete on equal terms with other producers, the original amount of abstraction permitted by the licence would be reduced?

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked what variations were visualised. Although the variations may be upwards or downwards, one would imagine that the main type of variation would be for more water to be abstracted. As the hon. Gentleman himself said, there is quite a procedure to be observed, and I have explained the differences between that procedure and that under Clause 3; that is to say, the modifications as read with Clause 4 (2).
The period is shorter and the applicant himself has to publish the notice rather than the purification board. The operative word is "may". The board, on the application of the holder of the licence, may vary that licence. The board does not need to accept the application. If somebody applies for more water there is no need for the board to allow a variation.
As for the question asked by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), the position as we see it is that every year the board would consider all the applications that had come in without necessarily taking any notice of what had happened in the past. It would consider the application in the light of the probable amount of water available and all the other circumstances, including the need for conservation and purification. Therefore, it should not militate in any way against the interest of someone who had not started in spray irrigation that somebody else had started six months or a year before him. We see the board considering all the applications at the end of the one year for the next year simply on the circumstances obtaining at that time and in the light of the future. I think that that will reassure the hon. Member.

Mr. Ross: It certainly does not reassure me. It is a silly provision bearing in mind the time that it takes, the cumbrous procedure, and the fact that

this is only a yearly licence. The Under-Secretary brings to our mind the one safeguard "may". In other words, there is no obligation upon the board to grant a licence, but how will it be done? [Interruption.] I do not know how you can listen to me, Sir William, and hear, as I can, at least three conversations going on between Ministers and Whips, and unofficial whips and the rest.

The Chairman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I hear him with pleasure, and distinctly.

Mr. Ross: I never doubted that you heard me with pleasure, Sir William, but I wondered whether or not my voice was reaching you in the confusion and babble of discussion going on near and far.
We are told that an application under subsection (2) brings in Clause 3 as read with Clause 4(2). Although it is left to the discretion of the board, if a person makes an application, and he has no hope of having it favourably received, he has to advertise in at least one local paper and give all the information about what he wants and where and in what amount. He then has to wait 14 days. After that there can be objections and the board may listen to him and say "No" or it may say "Yes," in which case he aggrieves the objectors.
Then there are 28 days within which, if he does not get what he wants or if there are conditions attached which make him aggrieved, he can appeal to the Secretary of State. Likewise, if he is satisfied, the person aggrieved can appeal. It is not the original applicant who has to spend money then in informing everyone concerned. It is the river purification board. If one counts the original application, the 14 days and the 28 days, the time taken to decide and the time taken to appeal, the decision on appeal and the time taken to inform all concerned, it is all a piece of nonsense when one bears in mind that the licence has only a year to run. I hope the hon. Gentleman will think about it again.
11.0 p.m.
Inevitably, whatever a river purification board does by granting this variation upwards, although the hon. Gentleman says that he imagines it will apply


only in the case of somebody taking over a farm in respect of which there is a licence for a small amount of water and that person wants a larger amount, the Clause does not say that. It gives a clear right of discretion, in any circumstances, for the river purification board to consider an application for a variation of the licence. The whole procedure may have been followed, starting in October or November, followed eventually by the decision and an appeal to the Secretary of State, and then two months later it would be possible for the person who has been refused to start all over again. That is what the subsection provides.
The exercise of this power may get river purification boards into a lot of trouble, and we should not put them into this position. I suggest that if a person already has a licence and has gone through the various procedures, he should wait until the new licence period. If he has just bought a farm and knew what he was buying, he should be prepared to wait for a few months for the new licence procedure to begin.
We should be very careful about the powers that we give to these boards. They are not democratically-elected bodies. They are not judicial bodies. But they are going to exercise a considerable amount of power in circumstances which may be unfavourable to their popularity in the various areas.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: We have now decided that a river purification board has got power to revoke licences. We have seen under subsection (2) that the availability of water may be an attraction to someone who has hitherto had a small amount of water, or no water at all, and whose licence has been refused. We have taken great care to ensure that everyone concerned is aware of what is done in respect of licences. Would it not be fair to let everyone know what happens in relation to a licence that has been revoked?
If a licence is revoked, whether because of a conviction or for some other reason, it means that there is water available for someone else, but nobody else will know about it unless it be someone who is on the river purification board—

or unless the river purification board is under an obligation to publish a notice to that effect.
I should like to know whether any thought was given to what the river purification board does in the case of the revocation of a licence so that those who have been denied water are enabled to exercise their powers under Clause 4. The only person who will be able to make an application will be somebody who knows of the availability of the water. Who is to know?—the river purification board. Who is on the board? There are local interests represented.
The Under-Secretary told us on Second Reading, and the Minister of State in another place, to meet criticisms there, promised, that there would be additional people on the board to represent local agricultural interests. Is this knowledge, which will be of considerable local interest, of the possibility of picking up someone else's licence or of someone already with a licence getting a chance under subsection (2) to get an increase, to be made known? In the administration of the Clause, will there be a possibility of informing the public by notice that there is additional water available for abstraction.

Mr. Willis: By subsection (1) of the Clause, a person who is guilty of an offence under Clause 2 can have his licence revoked. Also, a person who is guilty of a contravention of the provisions of Clause 2(1) can be subject to a fine not exceeding £50. In other words, if he extracts water without bothering to get a licence, he can be fined up to £50, but if he has a licence and he extracts double the amount for which he is licensed, he only has his licence revoked. There is a discrimination there.
I take it that a licence holder who extracted more water than he should would probably do it during the months of June and July, the drier months.

Mr. G. Campbell: Mr. G. Campbell indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: I should have thought that that would be likely. The offence might not be discovered till the end of July. The matter would go to the river board and his licence might not be revoked until August. All these things take time. Then, having had his licence revoked


in August, he could apply for another one in September, according to Clause 3. It does not seem to be much of a penalty.
There seems to be a premium on getting a licence and being minded to take out as much water as one likes. A man who takes too much water is not likely to be found out, and, if he is, it will be quite late in the day and he can renew his licence in another month or so. I may be wrong, but that seems to be how it works. Is this anything of a penalty at all? It seems rather unfair.

Mr. G. Campbell: I can reply to that straight away, while it is fresh in hon. Members' minds. It is most unlikely that a river purification board would be prepared to grant another licence to someone whose licence had so recently been revoked. The fact that there is this arrangement for considering licences every year—which we all agreed just now was a good thing—should not in any way be contradictory to the revocation of licences because it is entirely at the discretion of the river purification boards whether they grant a licence at all.

Mr. Willis: This raises an interesting point. I now understand that a river purification board will make its decisions concerning licences, not upon the quantity of water which is likely to be available in the river or stream, but upon the character of the applicant for a licence. If a board is to use other standards than the quantity of water which is available, we should be told what they are.

Mr. G. Campbell: I should not say that the decision was necessarily based upon an applicant's character. If a person had contravened his licence as recently as the hon. Member has suggested, and the licence had been revoked, he might not think it worth even applying for the following year. If he did apply, there is no reason why the board should grant a licence.
Had the hon. Member been able to take part in our debate on Friday, he would have found that on this point there was general agreement on both sides of the Committee that the circumstances and the criteria upon which a board would decide should be drawn as widely as possible. It was not simply

a question of allotting the water automatically. It was agreed that all possible circumstances should be taken into account, and a recent revocation of licence would certainly be an important point.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked whether it had been considered whether a river purification board should publish information about revocation of a licence or otherwise make the fact public. This has been considered, but we feel that we have already placed upon the boards such a burden of communicating with persons and of publishing notices that this was a case which did not need that procedure and we need not ask the boards to do it.
The hon. Member has provided a good example which I might have used on the last Amendment. He instanced a case of revocation and suggested that somebody else might be able to get the water. Only if there was an arrangement for upward variation and other arrangements, such as might be made following a late application under Clause 4(2), might it be possible for that situation to be met during the year.
At the beginning of a year, the quantity of water which is likely to be available would be considered by a board and allotted as the board thought fit between the applicants. We did not feel that we should, in the Bill, place upon boards a duty to publish a notice about this. We do not consider this to be necessary or that damage would be caused to other interests. The important thing is that a river purification board will know that notionally extra water is available, and we propose to leave to the discretion of the board whether anything in the way of publishing should be done.

Mr. Ross: Equally, the Under-Secretary will remember that we have allowed the presence on a river purification board of people with personal and direct interest in the matter. That is one of the dangers that springs to mind. The hon. Gentleman has said that I have provided him with a perfect argument. I am doing that all the time, but I did it after we had made a decision on subsection (1). We had decided that it should remain in the Clause. Therefore


it was all the more important that the other Clauses should be related to what is in the Bill.
On Clause 4 (2), we did not disagree in relation to late applicants. From their viewpoint, for the benefit of people who had not applied but who could apply late, it would be worth while to publish as widely as possible the knowledge that further water was available for allotment.
I still think that the Under-Secretary is wrong about this. We know of all the duties which he has insisted upon placing upon the river purification boards. I wanted to take some of them out in subsection (2), because the boards still have considerable duties despite the fact that an applicant for a variation must publish in the Press. A considerable amount of administrative work still rests upon the boards. I do not think that this would kill them, but it would certainly be fairer than leaving it to the possibility of information leaking to a limited number of people who had access to information available to the board for it to take action, either in respect of a late application or for a variation.
11.15 p.m.
I have only one more question to ask on this subsection. Does the hon. Gentleman visualise any other circumstances in which a board can revoke a licence? Or is the power to revoke a licence limited entirely to this discretionary power where there has been an offence under Clause 2? The Bill has to be read with the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, and if the hon. Gentleman turns to that Act, Section 18 thereof, he will see that there are certain powers and duties given to the boards and one relates to getting information and
requiring any person who in their opinion is abstracting water from any stream in the area … in quantities which are substantial in relation to the flow or volume of the stream … to give such information as to the abstraction or discharge … as may be specified … Any person who fails to comply with any directions given … within such time as may be specified … shall in respect of each such failure be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the failure continues after conviction therefor.

Here is another serious offence, and Clause 2(1) will equally apply, and they would apply where someone obstructs an officer of a board in the exercise of his duties. Why was it the board was limited to revocation only in respect of this one type of offence? Is it that this might be a technical offence, to quote the hon. Gentleman's own words? [Interruption.] The whole thing is sinister, I can tell hon. Members opposite, as they would have known had they been here on Friday, when the Under-Secretary was here by himself, and did not get out of the Chamber even for a cup of tea. Was it a matter of deliberate policy that the Government decided that the power to revoke a licence altogether should be limited? The main Act has to be read with the Bill. Did they think that it would bring into play revocation?

Mr. G. Campbell: I can confirm that there are no other circumstances in which a revocation is brought in. The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly said that the Bill, when it, as we hope it will be, is enacted, has to be read with the Act of 1951. Therefore, the parts of that Act which are brought in bring in the penalties where there are penalties, and it seemed to make sense to us that the revocation of a licence should be based upon contravention of the licence and that other matters should be dealt with by fines.
I omitted earlier to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It concerned the case of someone who was abstracting water without a licence. We went into this earlier in Committee, and I pointed out to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) that a person doing this would, in the first place, find it very difficult to do it without being discovered because of the equipment, which is very obvious and difficult to conceal, and very expensive, too, and that, secondly, he would open himself up to the penalty of imprisonment. I think that that deals with the situation of the person operating without a licence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR SHORTAGE OR ABUNDANCE OF WATER.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, after the first "that" to insert:
if occasioned by exceptional shortage of rain".
The Clause deals with special provisions for shortage or abundance of water, and subsection (1), which I seek to amend, deals with the position arising where there is a shortage of water occasioned by reason of either exceptional shortage of rain or other emergency. In such circumstances power is given to the river purification board to impose a temporary restriction on the abstraction of water, and in extreme cases it may even suspend the operation of licences altogether.
Then we have the proviso, which was probably put in in another place:
Provided that that restriction or, as the case may be, that suspension shall apply equitably to all licences relating to the stream or locality in question.
I wonder about the words:
exceptional shortage of rain or other emergency".
It is possible to imagine other emergencies leading to a shortage of water in a part of the stream but there might be plenty of water in another part of it, and it would be lacking in common sense for the Measure to say that because one has to take action in one part of a stream where there is no water one has also to take action in the other part where there is plenty of water. I suggest that the Government should accept this very reasonable Amendment.

Mr. G. Campbell: The Amendment seeks, I think, to introduce more flexibility into the Bill, and, as I indicated earlier, we want to make it as flexible as we reasonably can. Having listened to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I think the Amendment would be an improvement in making the Clause more flexible, and I am, therefore, glad to say that I will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out from "declaration" to "or" in line 8.
The Amendment deals with subsection (2), which is concerned with the problems

arising from abundance of water. Once again, we have parenthetically in line 7 the phrase
which shall apply equitably to all such licences".
It might be as well to have a little flexibility here, too, and I suggest that these words should be deleted.

Mr. G. Campbell: Here we see a difference. Where there is abundance of water, I do not think that the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman mentioned on the last Amendment would apply. We feel that it ought to be made clear that the river purification board should deal with all licensees equitably and that the extra water should, therefore, be made available on an equitable basis to all licence holders. While I appreciate the object behind the Amendment, I think that it would be better in this case to retain these words.

Mr. Ross: It all depends on circumstances. Why should we be as grandmotherly as this and tell the boards to do what, obviously, if the circumstances were as the hon. Member suggests, they would do anyway? We should exercise a certain amount of discretion. If the boards are to have all the authority and standing which we have been led to believe they are to have, those words are not necessary. But evidently the Government are wedded to them and would collapse if they were removed. Who am I to deny them, in their dying days, the power and privilege of retaining these words?

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, after "them", to insert "(a)".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I suggest that we discuss, at the same time, the following Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in page 6, line 12, at end insert:
(b) any decision under (2) of this section to all other persons, authorities or bodies known to them to be affected and in the case of a suspension of licences under subsection (2) shall publish in the local press details of such suspension.

Mr. Ross: That would be convenient, Sir Robert.
Subsection (3) requires that
A river purification board shall communicate any decision taken by them under this section to the holders of licences affected thereby.
I suggest that we add a new paragraph:
(b) any decision under (2) of this section to all other persons, authorities or bodies known to them to be affected and in the case of a suspension of licences under subsection (2) shall publish in the local press details of such suspension.
Obviously, if there is a position of abundance to an extent where licences are suspended, those who require notice of this more than anyone else are those who do not hold licences. Why should we limit notice only to licence holders? If licences were to be in suspension, presumably it would no longer be an offence to abstract water from a control area without a licence. When circumstances change like this, bearing in mind all the paraphernalia of spreading a wide knowledge of what is to be done in the creation of a control area and a licensing system, the boards should let everyone know.

Mr. G. Campbell: This, also, is a matter of judgment. I understand the reasons for the Amendment, but weighed against this is the onerous job to be placed upon the boards. It is well-established practice for public bodies responsible for water supplies to advertise in the Press decisions affecting the public, and the river purification boards would be likely to follow it. In any case, my right hon. Friend is prepared to include the desirability of advertising in the guidance which he proposes to give to the boards.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: Does that mean that effectively the hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, but does not want to include the words in the Clause?

Mr. Campbell: It means that we feel that we ought not to place this as an extra burden on the boards in the terms of the Amendment, but that it should be a matter for the guidance of my right hon. Friend to the boards in indicating, in the sort of circumstances the hon. Gentleman visualises, the desirabilty of the normal form of advertising

to which water boards are used in matters of water supply.

Mr. Ross: That is not good enough. If a person abstracts water without a licence, he is to be liable to at least a fine of up to £50. If there are circumstances in which a board says that for a period water can be abstracted without a licence, it has now to tell every licence holder. I am suggesting that it should be obliged to tell the public, everyone who wants to abstract water but who may not have a licence. Such people would be the most affected, because they could then abstract water without a licence and without breaking the law. [Interruption.] I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry). He knows that I would not do so unless I wanted to hurry the Bill through. I can assure him that he has made more of an intervention in these debates than any Scottish Tory Member, for not a single Scottish Tory back bencher has yet opened his mouth in these proceedings.
The Under-Secretary should remember that we are speaking within the context of a control area, where there has been shortage and where only a few people might have the right to abstract water and where many others might like to have that right, but have been refused a licence. They might have the equipment, but not a licence. If the board decided that the situation was such that people could take as much water as they liked, the licence holders would be in a privileged position. I am saying that everyone should be told by a simple notice in the Press. It would not cost much and, in view of the other responsibilities which the Secretary of State has given to the boards, it would not much of a responsibility.

Mr. Willis: I am not too happy about the Amendment. As my hon. Friend wishes to amend it, the Clause would read:
A river purification board shall communicate any decision taken by them

(a) under this section to the holders of licences affected thereby,
(b) any decision under (2) of this section
to all other persons, authorities or bodies known to them to be affected and in the case of a suspension under subsection (2) shall publish in the local press details of such suspension.


I think that this duty which my hon. Friend proposed to impose on the river purification boards to circularise
all other persons, authorities or bodies known to them to be affected
would be rather onerous. I would be satisfied with publication in the local Press of the fact that licences had been suspended and that people were now free to take water from the river. I think that that would be sufficient. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman cannot include that in the Bill.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend thinks that I am placing a great burden on the boards by asking them to inform
all other persons, authorities or bodies known to them to be affected …".
Those concerned may be statutory water authorities who have certain rights to extract water. They may be people with fishing rights who are concerned with the preservation of fish in the river. They may be local authorities who are concerned with preventing pollution of the river.
If we relax the restrictions on the abstraction of water, the interests of all those people will be affected. I think that it is only right that they should be informed, because they are vitally concerned with what happens to the river. They can then make representations to the board. It may seem an onerous job, but it will not be all that onerous. I think that it is only fair that people who have rights in the matter, and local authorities who have a statutory interest in what happens to the rivers, should be told about what is happening.

Mr. Willis: I was apologising to the hon. Gentleman for having missed his words of wisdom on Friday. To be honest, when we saw the great exodus of Tory Members to Scotland, it was thought that at least one Labour Member should go to Scotland to keep a watchful eye on their activities, and that is what I did. There were no Tory Members here on Friday, apart from the Minister, of course, but our side was well represented. They managed to fill quite a few columns of HANSARD.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of certain people knowing about what is being done. When I raised the question of the onerous duty which my hon. Friend was proposing to impose

on the boards, I had in mind the fact that certain representations had been made, as a result of which certain provisions were written in to the Schedule to enable the Secretary of State to relieve the boards of the duty to notify every person known to have an interest in the control order if the circumstances merited it.
It was because of those representations that it occurred to me that my hon. Friend was proposing something equally onerous. It may be very difficult for a board to fulfil the duty which my hon. Friend is seeking to impose on it. I make this point because the boards themselves have pointed out the difficulties of doing a job like this.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of certain people knowing about this, but I think that it would be sufficient to publish in the local Press a notice to the effect that there has been a suspension of licences, or that people are free to take water as they want it, or that there are to be certain freedoms for a period of time. After all, many notices which affect a lot of people appear only in the Press.
Most people who are concerned in these matters generally keep an eye on the local Press, and on these notices. It would have been sufficient simply to publish the details in the Press, and I cannot understand why that is not provided for in the Bill. There would have been no harm in simply having a new subsection saying that such details should be published in the Press.

Mr. Manuel: The Under-Secretary has said that he will make such alteration as is necessary so that the Secretary of State can give a direction to the river purification board to insert an advertisement in the local Press. But when we are dealing with subsection (2) and the additions proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) we are dealing with two situations. In cases where a river purification board relaxes the restrictions for a temporary period it is merely relaxing them to the licence holders.
I take it that they would be notified, as such. But where there is a complete suspension of restrictions for a period, in effect the licences are also being suspended. I can appreciate that where the restrictions are relaxed licence holders can take a certain additional


amount of water, but the Amendment has substance in cases where there is a complete suspension. I am well aware of occasions where, owing to a drought, advertisements are inserted in the local Press warning people to be careful with water. That is common practice. But does the Under-Secretary intend that there shall be similar advertisements in the local Press when there is a complete suspension of the restrictions and the licences are in abeyance for a certain period? Legal questions may arise whether water can be taken ad lib by anyone, or whether it can be taken only by those who already have a right to take it—whether it would be an offence for a person from a caravan to cross two fields to take the water, thereby bringing into question the law of trespass.

Mr. G. Campbell: As I said earlier, this is very much a matter of judgment. In the circular which my right hon. Friend would propose to send to the boards for their guidance he would point out the desirability of advertising in these circumstances. The question is whether we should make that mandatory, and also make it mandatory for the boards to notify all the other affected interests.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has pointed out the objection that there might be from the point of view of the onerous duty of having to notify all interests. It is a question whether we should make advertising mandatory or leave it to the discretion of the boards. There seem to be two aspects of the problem. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised the question of various interests, such as the interests of water and local authorities. The purification boards are themselves composed of representatives of the interests most concerned, including the local authorities, and they, in turn, will presumably be able to inform their interested bodies of what is happening.
Then we have the position of other farmers along the river who might want to irrigate their land. It seems unlikely that those who have expensive equipment—unless they had committed some contravention; and we dealt with this issue earlier—and had invested a considerable

amount of money in that equipment would not be holding licences. They might not be extracting all the water for which they had applied, but in many cases the purification board would know those with this equipment, anxious to use spray irrigation methods, and one can assume that, unless they were just starting up, they would be licence holders.
These are the objections we see to the Amendment. We are not objecting to it in principle. I am merely pointing out the difficulties. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will draw attention to them in the circular of guidance which will be sent out. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: Would the Under-Secretary clear up one point before we dispose of this matter? If there is a complete suspension for all the farmers bordering a river, will they be permitted to take water during that suspension period?

Mr. Campbell: The position is as I indicated on Second Reading, that any riparian owner has the right to take water for the primary purpose. That situation is not changed and, therefore, if a farmer wishes to take water for purposes other than spray irrigation, that right would still be there. The question is whether he would be taking it for purposes beyond that; which brings us back to the question of a river or stream where there is no control area or licensing system.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I have given the Under-Secretary notice of a question I want answered. He will appreciate that a peculiar position will arise if, on any occasion, there is a temporary suspension of licensing. He will recall that on another occasion we were discussing the words contained in Clause 3(14):
In any action brought against a person in respect of the abstraction of water from a source of supply, it shall be a defence for him to prove that the water was abstracted in pursuance of a licence under this Act, and that the provisions of the licence were complied with.
The hon. Gentleman has fairly stated that there is an element of doubt whether


anyone has the right to abstract water to the extent being done for spray irrigation, but are we not giving a person legal immunity from action; that is, if anyone questions an individual the person could merely say that he has a licence, and that would be a sufficient answer? What will happen during the period when the licence is suspended? Will not that person lose his immunity?

Mr. G. Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman says, he gave me notice of this question by putting down an Amendment. The position would be the same as on a river or stream where there was no licensing system and no control order; that is to say, the immunity under Clause 3(14) would no longer apply. This seems reasonable, because at that time there will be any number of rivers and streams in Scotland where it will be other farmers who are abstracting water for spray irrigation in similar circumstances, so it seems reasonable, and it is our interpretation of common law—

Mr. Manuel: Without a licence?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, without a licence, because no licence exists unless there is a control order for the purification board area, and it is our interpretation of common law that it is reasonable that if there is a complete suspension of licensing like this the farmers who are undertaking spray irrigation, because they are riparian occupiers, should be in the same position legally as are those who are doing it at a river or stream where there is no licensing system because there is no control order.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(EXPENSES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I appreciate that my very important Amendment No. 64 has not been selected, but I wondered whether or not we should consider the whole question of how all this operation is to be paid for. It would appear that it will be paid for by the local taxpayers;

that is to say, this work of the river purification boards, which, as I see it, is certainly not related purely to the question of pollution as affecting the taxpayers themselves, has to be paid for by the ratepayers. They might be the ratepayers of a burgh that is nowhere near the river concerned, but the people getting the benefits are the farmers, who have been given legal immunity and allowed, for a licence fee of £5 a year, to take as much water as the licence allows during a certain period.
We have a "well-heeled" farmer amongst us, and I understand from my reading of the farming newspapers and periodicals that if a farmer gets about 1 in. of water at the right time when the early-potato tubers are of the right size, not only does he get a larger crop but one that is fairly palatable and will fetch a reasonable price. It is probably just as well that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) has deprived us for a short time of his company—he is usually here, and was battling here over this Bill on Friday—because here is another subsidy for the farmers, but this time it is from the local taxpayers—the ratepayers.
From what we heard in our early debate today, people are already disturbed by the way the rates are increasing. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here, because I see that the rates for Argyll are going up by another 1s. It is really not entirely desirable that this expense should be met by the local taxpayers. It might be reasonable in dealing with river pollution, although it is arguable even there, bearing in mind that industry benefits as well, and that industry is still derated in Scotland to a certain extent.
Here we have local ratepayers paying for the increased productivity of land which does not pay a penny of rates and for that reason does not even appear in the valuation roll. It is very difficult nowadays to know who owns what in Scotland. We have the same system now as that in England and Wales and rates are paid only on the actual farmhouse. Does the Under-Secretary think it right to carry over the financial provisions of the Act dealing with river pollution into this Bill?
There has been considerable argument, although the matter was skated


over very quickly on Friday, whether this business should be self-supporting. The hon. Gentleman's anxiety to avoid work for the river purification boards is related to his desire to save money on the local rates, but there is another way of doing that—by making this work self-supporting or making payment an obligation on the taxpayer rather than the local ratepayer. It would be a much fairer way of raising the money. I had a good Amendment down on Friday in which I suggested a fee of £5 plus a sum related to the amount of water abstracted.
I see no reason why this expenditure should be passed on to the local ratepayer. The Under-Secretary no doubt will tell us that the local ratepayer will be reimbursed to an extent by grant. This might meet some of the cost for some people but it will meet it varyingly in parts of the country where the control areas happen to be situated. I hope that the Government will give some thought to this. We have not had much indication of the cost. It may be said that it will be small but it should be remembered that it will be related not to the whole of Scotland but only to a particular area. The 1951 Act already lays down that the cost is to be allocated according to valuation by various burghs and county councils.
I assure the Under-Secretary that probably the most valuable thing in some of these areas will be the agricultural land and the fisheries—and the agricultural land does not bear rates. It is unfair to pass the burden of spray irrigation on to all the ratepayers in an area when it should have nothing to do with the local rates. The expenditure should not be met in this way.

Mr. G. Campbell: In our discussion on Friday, when the hon. Member was outside, taking a brief lunch, I was able to give his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), on an earlier Amendment, a very rough estimate of the expenditure that we foresee. This was on the basis that probably three river purification boards would apply for control orders in the foreseeable near future. On that basis, after the licence fees had come in, the expenditure of all of them would be about £4,000 a year, or something over £1,000 each if the boards are roughly of the

same size. I give that as an indication of the amount of money which we are considering.
12 m.
The hon. Gentleman spoke as if this was something which was done entirely for farmers, but I am not sure that we can look at it like that. The farmers, particularly if they apply for a certain quantity of water and are allotted a considerably lesser amount, will feel that this is something which is done for a wider community, perhaps particularly—and rightly—to assist angling or other interests. Therefore, I do not think one can say that this is done entirely for farmers. Spray irrigation is a new technique which we wish to encourage. If, in certain areas, there is a shortage of water and control is exercised over the amount taken out, the farming community may well feel that this system whereby they cannot take as much water as they want for their crops has been devised to benefit others in the community as well.
On that basis, we think that it is reasonable that this expenditure, which is not very large, should be borne according to the river purification boards' finances. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree, from what I have said, that it is not a large expenditure which is proposed.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that the fanners, instead of being grateful to us for giving them this legal immunity and for creating a right for them under licence, were being deprived of something. Will he cast his mind back to the situation arising in connection with one river in particular which was mentioned in another place, where pumps are capable of withdrawing 15,000 gallons of water per hour? There are at present eight such pumps. The chances are that before many years have passed—I would say probably two—there will be 20 pumps capable of withdrawing 300,000 gallons of water per hour from the River Tyne in East Lothian. Think what effect that will have on the river and the fish.
The immediate benefit is going to agriculture. The hon. Gentleman has told us about the expense of the equipment. The one thing to which any expense accrues is the actual water. The water does not belong to any man. It belongs to the community. If it had been possible to build up a legal right over the years,


the riparian owners in Scotland would have done so. But they have not got it. No doubt, if the land superiors had been enabled to hire out the water and charge it out to the tenants they would have done so. The Earls of Home would have been in the forefront of the water "racket".
The hon. Gentleman says that it is reasonable to suggest that the people in the villages and towns, in the large burghs and the small burghs, should pay for this. There is absolutely no justification in law or in ethics for making that suggestion. The only people who should pay are those who are going to profit from this arrangement, those with a direct interest in the water.
The fishing interests and the others are already concerned about pollution. Industry has already had a burden put upon it in respect of the water which it puts in. According to the hon. Gentleman's argument, industry should have passed that burden on to the local ratepayers. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) could give us plenty of evidence that industry would have been quite prepared to persuade him to that effect when he was drawing up the 1951 Act. But we successfully resisted that. A certain amount of the work of the local boards has been passed to the local ratepayer. But enough is enough.
Here we have an identifiable interest and a direct profit from what is being done, and it is most unfair to suggest that this burden should be passed on to the local ratepayers. It is a matter of principle, and the Government have not faced it. They say that it is only £1,000 a year per river. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that amount may not be so trifling to some burghs where a 1d. rate will raise about £5. It may not be insignificant even to some county councils in certain parts of Scotland, as the Under-Secretary should know better than anyone. I hope that he goes back to his county council and says that he thinks that an additional charge of £1,000 is nothing at all.
I see the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) in his place.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: rose—

Mr. Ross: I am sorry. I am not prepared at this moment to give way.
I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Under-Secretary realise that this is no argument at all. I do not doubt that the Government have made up their mind. They want to punish the local ratepayers. But I hope that, between now and Report, the hon. Gentleman will reflect on this question and discuss it with his officials. He ought to change his mind about it. I know that it would mean changes in other respects, but it is not too late. There is plenty of time.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will heed what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and think again about this aspect of the matter. We have no real idea of how this business can develop. Major horticultural interests could use a great deal of water. By Clause 8, on the financial side of the Bill, we are adopting a new procedure, as I understand it, a procedure which does not apply to other users of water.
On Second Reading, I made the point that other users of water, particularly industrial users, had their water metered and they paid on the actual consumption. We are here departing from that well-established method, well known to water boards and local authorities. We say that, when a licence is granted and the £5 fee is paid, a quite substantial horticultural or agricultural interest could draw water to the extent of 15,000 or 30,000 gallons per day—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: An hour.

Mr. Manuel: —and pay the same amount as the small man with a very small holding who is, perhaps, building up his business. They get the water on the same terms.
Does not the Under-Secretary agree that water which is taken from a stream or river should be metered, as is done with other users? It should not be forgotten that in catchment areas where control orders will be made, the water might ultimately have gone into a water undertaking's reservoirs or holding tanks. I should like the Under-Secretary to consider the proposition that there should be a scale of licence fees, ranging from, say, £5 for minor abstraction of water up to


the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) of 15,000 gallons per day.
As I have pointed out earlier, later applications by small users might be precluded because other people have already taken the water. Great difficulty might be caused if, at the end of a year, the supply of water ceases for somebody who has acres under glass for horticultural purposes, who might be told, "We are cutting down your supply, because we have 12 more applications and we cannot allow you to have the quantity of water which you have abstracted hitherto." Possibly, therefore, we should consider, above a certain abstraction rate, a scale of fees related to actual consumption.

Mr. G. Campbell: In reply to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the Bill does not seek to confer a right upon riparian farmers. For clarity, I repeat that there is the right for a riparian proprietor to take water for primary purposes. I have said that the abstraction of large quantities of water is open to doubt. I have not gone beyond that, because although farmers have in recent years used large quantities of water for spray irrigation, no one has challenged that right. There has been no case to enable us to know the law in this regard. All that I have said, therefore, is that the taking of large quantities of water is open to challenge, but that there is this basic right for riparian proprietors.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that it is visualised under the Bill that a system of measuring the water would be used when a licence had been issued.

Mr. Manuel: Not for payment.

Mr. Campbell: No, but it would have to be measured by some system. The hon. Member suggested a system of payment in proportion to the amount of water abstracted. There would be great difficulty about this. First, depending upon the circumstances each year, the quantities made available to each applicant could differ from year to year.

Mr. Manuel: That happens today.

Mr. Campbell: Secondly, under Clause 7(1), in conditions of shortage of water, a river board could reduce

the amount of water permitted under licence. All this would make it difficult to have a system of payment proportional to the quantity taken.
In passing, the hon. Member indicated that he did not foresee that a farmer who had a large area of crops under spray irrigation would be told in one year that he must considerably reduce his abstractions because of new applicants. We do, however, foresee such a situation under the Bill. That is what could happen. That is why that farmer may well feel that the Bill is not going all his way. That, indeed, is the situation which could happen under this Bill, and, it seems to me, will be likely to happen in certain circumstances where there is a large number of applications and a water shortage, or a combination of both.
12.15 a.m.
I think that both hon. Members mentioned the pumps which can abstract very large quantities of water at the moment. The main purpose of the Bill is to make sure that, in circumstances where water cannot be spared from a river, those pumps will not be able to take so much water. That is under the licensing system of control orders. Therefore, the farmer who may have this equipment already will find himself being able to withdraw much less water than, perhaps, he had hoped to be able to do.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will remember that on Second Reading I drew attention to the facts that there would be difficulty during periods of drought, and that there are periods when vast quantities of water run to waste, and that I argued that provision should be written into the Bill to make it obligatory to have holding tanks or reservoirs on the farm. This would solve the problem. If the hon. Gentleman would grapple with that problem, instead of allowing a farmer to build up a big business and then say to him, as he just now has said, that he is going to cut him off from what he has built up—

The Chairman: Order. I am a little uncertain how this discussion can be included in the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Manuel: I am very sorry if I have infringed the rules of order, but I thought, Sir William, that we were dealing with payment, and under the Clause any moneys not met by the fee of £5 have to revert to county councils and large burghs under the 1951 Act.

The Chairman: I think I can help the hon. Member. That came under Clause 3. This Clause, Clause 8, deals with expenses.

Mr. Manuel: Yes, expenses incurred by the Secretary of State, but I refer to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, and that says:
It is impossible to forecast precisely the increase in expenditure which may be incurred by the Secretary of State or by the county and large burgh councils in the areas of river purification boards under this Bill, because this will depend on the number of control orders made. Any administrative expenses of a river purification board remaining after allowing for revenue from licence fees will form part of the expenditure to be met, under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951, by the county and large burgh councils in the board's area. This may involve a slight increase in the Exchequer Equalisation Grant, if any, payable to those councils …
under Clause 8. I was trying to relate the provisions which would fall on the local authority because the licence payable did not meet commitments.

Mr. G. Campbell: I remember the hon. Gentleman making this point about storing water, and I replied to it, and agreed with the desirability. The effect of the Bill should be to encourage farmers to store water for the times when they need it. There is nothing in the Bill inconsistent with that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect even further subsidy to be given to the farmers for that purpose.
I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that there is a scheme under which farmers are assisted to some extent for that, and, therefore, he would not expect some further scheme for this. The essence of his argument and that of his hon. Friends is that the farmers should not be financially assisted any more. I think that that is the answer to his point.

Mr. Ross: I do not know that the hon. Gentleman ever got down to answering any points on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". The Clause says:

There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament … any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State … and increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums payable under any other enactment".
Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to answer any of the points put forward which were relevant?

Mr. Campbell: I was under the impression that I had answered at some length all the points put forward arising from the Clause. I do not need to read the Clause over, because it is very plain. Interesting points were raised about the amount of expenditure expected, and other points, and I thought I had answered them all.

Mr. Ross: I have heard many a Minister being out of order, but have never heard one so consistently out of order as the hon. Gentleman was on this Clause. The Clause takes us back to the 1951 Act, which tells us that the expenses of a river purification board, so far as they are not defrayed out of revenues of the board under any enactment other than that section, shall be defrayed by the councils of the counties and large burghs. Subsection (2) means that there will be in respect of expenditure by the local authorities an increased demand on the equalisation grant.
I have not yet been convinced by the hon. Gentleman that this is right. He has not addressed himself to the argument. He began telling us what the rights in relation to primary water were and said that we were not giving any more rights to the farmer. When a farmer has only the right under common law in Scotland to take out of any river that runs through his property water for his own household for food and drink and for his beasts for food and drink, that is a very different matter from taking 15,000 gallons an hour for spray irrigation.
I suggest that the revenues that would defray the expenses arising under the Clause could well be taken in respect of the new right that we are giving. We have not had an answer to that. We have had no justification for passing this expense on to the ratepayers of county councils and large burghs. They are the people who have to pay. It is laid down that the expenses shall be defrayed by the councils of the counties and large burghs whose districts are comprised


wholly or partly in the river purification board. There has been no justification for this in respect of spray irrigation.

Mr. G. Campbell: I tried to explain earlier that the Bill attempts a balance between various interests of which farming is one, and that was the reason why we felt that this limited expenditure could reasonably fall in the way the hon. Gentleman has described—a large part of it upon the local authorities under the arrangements for financing the river purification boards. But I was not so optimistic as to think that I should be able to convince the hon. Gentleman of this because I knew that he would have strong views on it. I have tried to deploy the arguments as well as I could, but I never raised my sights on this point so high as to think that I should be able to convince the hon. Gentleman. However, I feel that I have explained the reasons why we think that the Clause is right and that I have answered the points that were raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(CONSTRUCTION, CITATION AND EXTENT.)

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, to leave out subsection (5).
This is a formal Amendment deleting the privilege Amendment inserted in another place to reserve the prerogative of the House of Commons in financial matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO APPLICATIONS FOR, MAKING, COMING INTO OPERATION, AND VALIDITY OF, CONTROL ORDERS.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, to leave out "in their area and".

The Amendment speaks for itself.

Mr. G. Campbell: The Schedule follows the form of Schedule 2 of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, 1961, in which there is similar procedure which has proved satisfactory in practice and which, incidentally, so commended itself

to the Scottish Standing Committee at the time that it was passed without criticism.
These words or their equivalent are included in Schedule 2 of the 1961 Act, the point being that it is not only the area of the local authority but also the area of the board and the control order that is involved. We consider that these two areas should both be in this Schedule.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State could tell me how this would operate in the area with which I am familiar. I have my home in my constituency, in the market gardening and fruit growing area of Clydeside. There is a board for the Clyde and its tributaries and the board's area extends from the Clyde Estuary-including Glasgow—through Lanarkshire and into counties on either side.
I am not aware of any local newspaper which circulates throughout the area covered by the board. I understand that it is very unlikely that a control order would relate to a particular part of the Clyde with its tributaries at that point, and I can well understand the selection of a local paper within the area. I cannot, however, visualise, there being a local paper circulating throughout the area including Glasgow, large parts of Lanarkshire and its burghs and stretching into adjoining counties.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: I should make it clear that these words mean the area of the board and the area of the control order. These are not newspapers circulating exactly in the area. If there is a newspaper which covers both, and in the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned he will probably find that one newspaper covers both—

Mr. T. Fraser: Mr. T. Fraser indicated dissent.

Mr. Campbell: It sounded as though the hon. Gentleman was describing circumstances in which a local newspaper covered both areas. In most circumstances there will be two local newspapers, one covering one area and one the other. The intention is, and the hon. Gentleman will find similar wording in the Second Schedule to the Flood Prevention


(Scotland) Act, 1961, to make sure that this is published in a newspaper which would cover both the control order area and the area of the board.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not understood me. I recognised that we were here referring to two local newspapers, one circulating within the area covered by the control order. If a control order is made for that part of the River Clyde likely to be covered by a control order, that part which is partly in my constituency, the fruit-growing, market-gardening part of Clydeside where spray irrigation is practised, the newspaper will be the Hamilton Advertiser. I did not want to set out to advertise this local newspaper, which circulates in the area which would be covered by the control order.
The hon. Gentleman is defending the inclusion of the words which my hon. Friend seeks to delete. They say that the board must publish its intention in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area of the board. I am saying that that area in my example includes the City of Glasgow, the County of Renfrew, part of the County of Ayr, part of the County of Dumfries, the whole of Lanarkshire and the large burghs, and so on, in Lanarkshire. I am merely saying that there will not be a local newspaper covering the whole of the area of the board. I am asking whether we are not making a mistake, in the Bill of 1964 and not the Act of 1961, in making it mandatory on the board to do something which it is manifestly incapable of doing.

Mr. G. Campbell: I am sorry if I have been slow in understanding the hon. Gentleman. I think that I understand him perfectly now. The answer is that the local newspaper in the board's area does not have to cover the whole of the board's area. In a situation such as the hon. Gentleman has described, where the board's area would include an enormous city and a very large area, it would be difficult to find anything which could be described as a local newspaper covering the whole area. The position is that it does not need to cover the whole of the board's area. The object is that the newspaper should cover the area under consideration and that there should be another newspaper if

there is an area separate from the control order area.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman had finished one sentence earlier, he would have been clear and lucid, and he would have been accepting my Amendment. The hon. Gentleman then added another sentence. I am sure that he did not know what it meant, because he seemed to draw a distinction between a board area and a control area. I assume that his intention was to make a momentous announcement in his last sentence, but the only result was confusion.
Will the hon. Gentleman forget that there is a Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, 1961? Will he attend to this Bill and to this Schedule? Will he read the Amendment? If these words were left out, there would be no confusion. Paragraph 2 would read:
On making an application for a control order the river purification board concerned shall in two successive weeks publish in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area to which the control order would relate …
It is as simple as that. That is the area that we want to cover. That is the area in which we want to advise people. Why confuse the matter merely because a draftsman put in some words that are in the 1961 Act, which, in turn, were probably taken from the 1891 Act?
The 1961 Act was probably passed when my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) had dashed out for what I would dignify by the term "lunch," but was, in fact, a hurried cup of tea, with the result that these words escaped our notice. There is no reason why we should defend them today. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the sun will still rise tomorrow if he accepts the Amendment. If he did that, the Statute would be clearer, and would not lead to the confusion that arose in the hon. Gentleman's mind during his speech.

Mr. G. Campbell: The answer is that the aim of this is to get the maximum publicity in the area affected. The hon. Gentleman has been much concerned about farming other interests concerned in this matter. This would make sure, so far as is possible, that persons affected further down the river had a chance of hearing about it. I know the special example of the Clyde, and I was trying to help the hon. Gentleman with that


example, but there are other cases, particularly those where spray irrigation and a shortage of water are most likely, such as on the East coast of Scotland, where similar circumstances do not arise.
We think that this gives wider publicity, and that it would ensure that other interests, which may be further down the river, and which may be concerned about the abstraction of water, had a chance of hearing about it. That is its purpose. There is nothing sinister about this. We think that it follows the good example of an earlier Scottish Act. We think that it aims for the maximum publicity. But cutting it down as the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is a possibility that some of the people affected and interested would have less chance of hearing about it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 7, line 40, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 2 on page 8.

This Amendment will have to be accepted now. The hon. Gentleman has told us that we are to give this matter widespread publicity so that everyone concerned shall know about it. Paragraph 3 reads:
(1) Not later than the date on which the said notice is first published as aforesaid, the river purification board shall serve a copy thereof … on the following — (a) … (b) … (c) … (d) every person known to the river purification board to have any interest in any land to which the control order applied for would relate …".

Since the hon. Member is taking all this trouble to get this into the newspapers I suggest that we should not place this impossible task—

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Why is it impossible?

Mr. Ross: Why is it impossible? If the hon. Member has any knowledge of Scottish law he will know what is involved in the expression
any interest in any land".
It has a technical connotation. This is so bad that a let-out is immediately given in the proviso:
Provided that where it appears to the Secretary of State, from representations made to him by the board, that compliance with head (d) of this sub-paragraph would be unduly onerous, it shall be sufficient compliance if the board, having submitted proposals in this

regard to the Secretary of State, take such steps as he may direct as respects service of the said copy documents …".
This is nonsense. What happened was that in another place somebody accepted an impossible Amendment. Then this proviso had to be inserted so as to get out of the difficulty. I suggest that we wipe it out in this House and remove head (d).

Mr. G. Campbell: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is not here, because he was particularly keen on this provision and during the Second Reading debate he specially asked me about it. I was able to tell him that head (d), plus this proviso, was in the Schedule. He was quite satisfied with that. I am sorry that I do not have him here to support me at the moment, but he indicated earlier his support for the wording. Head (d) is a safeguard to ensure that people who have a legitimate interest in what is being done are informed and that at the same time there is a reasonable proviso to meet the situation which the hon. Member visualises. That is to spare the purification board—if it entails a tremendous amount of work—from having to communicate with every interest.
The proviso enables this task to be scaled down to a reasonable operation. Despite what the hon. Member said, we feel that head (d) is an important one, and that with the proviso it enables a purification board which might in certain circumstances be faced with a herculean task to do something which is more reasonable in the circumstances.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Under-Secretary has met himself coming back. He will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) gave him some support on an earlier Amendment this evening, in Clause 7. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) moved an Amendment to say that the river purification board would have to make some easement of the licensing provisions because of an abundance of water, and that other bodies and authorities should be informed in equal manner as the Bill provides in the case of licence holders.
The Under-Secretary argued that it would be too heavy a burden to impose on a purification board, and he could


not even accept that part of the Amendment which made it mandatory on the board to advertise the relaxation of the provisions of the order in the local newspapers. He said that his right hon. Friend would merely advise the purification board so to behave when there was an abundance of water.
We have just had a discussion about the publication of the application in the local newspapers so that everybody would get to know. It is proper that the bodies set out under heads (a), (b) and (c) should have a direct communication from the purification board.
12.45 a.m.
When the board has published, in the two local papers to which the Under-Secretary referred earlier, the necessary details and has informed the local authorities and all statutory bodies, organisations and associations as mentioned in the Clause, why should the board have to inform itself of the identity of every person with an interest in the land? As the hon. Gentleman knows—as does anyone who has had anything to do with legislation concerning land in Scotland—nobody really knows to whom these communications should be sent. That is why this proviso must be included in the Clause.
Does the Under-Secretary consider that persons with an interest in the land will be unaware of what the board proposed to do, after it has advertised the details in the local newspapers? They will be fully aware of the proposals, as will everyone else in the area. For this reason we see no reason why this obligation should be placed on the board. Obviously, the board will apply to the Secretary of State for relief because it will be unable to properly discharge its obligation, the right hon. Gentleman will grant the relief and the board will have gone to a lot of expenditure, which will be met not merely by those with an interest in the land but by the ratepayers generally. Considering that the right hon. Gentleman told us that the expense might be about £1,000 in the case of each control area, why will he not accept my hon. Friend's proposal and get rid of this virtually impossible obligation placed on boards?

Mr. G. Campbell: I am glad to explain the difference between the discussion

we had earlier on an Amendment concerning advertising and this one. In the earlier case, we were discussing information about the revocation of a single licence in a control area. In this case, we are discussing the question of whether a control area should be set up at all. This is, therefore, a far more important matter and concerns a control order area once a licensing system has been set up.

Mr. T. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 7(2) he will realise that our Amendment did not deal with the revocation of a single licence at all, but with the situation in which the whole licensing procedure was being set aside.

Mr. Campbell: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring to an earlier debate on a similar question, but it still does not alter my argument. Earlier, we were considering the question of informing persons concerned about a single revocation; later, we referred to advertising concerning licences in a control area, but the point remains that in the Schedule we are considering a procedure for setting up a control area in a purification board's area.
If the hon. Gentleman had been here on Friday he would have heard his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) criticising the fact that the word "control" was used at all, and seeking to substitute the word "supervision." He criticised ideologically the party on this side for, as he said, imposing controls—he even called them "central" controls. In answer, I explained that this was setting up controls under a certain procedure under this Schedule for informing the persons concerned.
So that very criticism which the hon. Member for Fife, West made in our discussion now rebounds, because here is the answer that I gave him then, which is that we are making quite certain that, as far as possible, all interests that will be concerned with the initial establishment of the control order area will have the opportunity to know that the application has been made, and then taking what action they feel they should to safeguard their interests.
That, I think, is the complete answer to what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Ross: If the Under-Secretary thinks that, he is easily satisfied. Is it desirable that this should be done? We want everyone possible who is to be affected to know about it. That is why we decided to publish for two successive weeks in a local newspaper that covered the area. Judging by what we now have, that is to be done. Now the hon. Gentleman says that we must also have subsection (d). Was this in the Measure as originally drafted, or does it result from an Amendment in another place? If he does not read the proceedings there, I do.
Let us see what the subsection says. It states:
every person known to the river purification board …".
So the board does not need to know anybody, so if it does not want this subsection to mean anything it means nothing:
to have any interest in any land …
Where is the limitation of that? How is anyone to know the extent of this—the legal aspect of the interest in land? There are local authorities in Scotland that would like to trace people with a direct and personal interest in land to enable them to get rid of some properties that should have been pulled down a long time ago, but they do not know who owns them, and cannot find out. They have to try, and keep on trying. The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, yes, it is all right—the proviso is there. We do not want to hang things up too long." Do we? He says that this is absolutely essential.
The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, with which this Bill is to be read, set up the river purification boards in the first place. In that case the responsibility for informing people fell not upon the river board which had no staff or offices, but upon the Secretary of State for Scotland, heaven help us. What obligation was laid upon him? Remembering that in future a river purification board will have as one of its functions the possibility of a control area, is not it right that we should examine what obligations were laid upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to inform the interests concerned?
The First Schedule of the 1951 Act says that

… the Secretary of State shall serve a copy of the said notice and of the draft order on any river purification board concerned and on the council of every county or large burgh whose district is comprised wholly or partly in the area affected by the order, on the fishery district board of every fishery district so comprised and on any navigation authority or harbour authority exercising functions in relation to any stream in that area.
What about "all the persons known" to the board? Why were those words not put into that Act? It was simply because the thing was quite impossible. I suggest that we forget about this provision right away and that between now and the Report stage the Under-Secretary thinks of something much more sensible.
If this requirement was not necessary in respect of the establishment of river purification boards, and it is not desirable to lay it on the Secretary of State who is not without staff, why should we lay this onerous and indeed impossible duty now on river purification boards which are not over indulged with staff? If the hon. Gentleman likes to read what was said by certain noble Lords about offices and staff he will have an idea how silly this proposal is. It is impossible to imagine anyone having a comprehensive knowledge of occupiers, ownership, part ownership, land superiors and the rest. It might be an interest that derived from a loan, and there is no need to prove interest apart from idle curiosity. I have an interest in many pieces of land without having a legal interest. The phrase
every person known to the purification board to have any interest in any land …
is, legally, absolute nonsense.
If the hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment he should have a look at this matter between now and Report. I hope that he has not come here without power to accept Amendments. I know that he is a very junior Under-Secretary and the youngest of the lot, but we would take it as a slight on the House of Commons if he is here with the right to listen to the argument but without the right to diverge from the instructions of the Secretary of State—and there should be nothing to prevent the Secretary of State being here on the Committee stage of a Scottish Bill.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: In view of the fact that I have been able to consider and accept Amendments, I would have hoped


the hon. Gentleman would realise that, of course, I am in a position to accept Amendments. But, however persuasive the hon. Gentleman—and he is very persuasive; he argues his case very well—we regard sub-paragraph 3(d) as necessary with the proviso. That sub-paragraph was in the Bill originally; it is the proviso which was added in another place.
I would agree that without the proviso there would be the possibility of an onerous task being placed upon the river purification board, but we feel that with the proviso the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised can be met. This need not be an onerous task, but it is an important one.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, to leave out "in a prominent position".
I do not think that—does the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) wish to move the Amendment?

Commander Donaldson: I have no desire to move the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] If the hon. Member addresses me, surely I may reply.

Mr. Ross: All the hon. and gallant Gentleman has to do is to rise and make a speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did rise."] He was not called.
I do not think that the words which the Amendment seeks to omit add anything at all to the sense of paragraph 4, and I therefore suggest that they should be left out.

Mr. G. Campbell: I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks surprising, because these are simple and straightforward words. They are well tried and the meaning is clear. They are exactly the same as in the Schedule to the other Scottish Act which went through the Scottish Committee without any criticism. These words serve a useful purpose.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 8, line 44, to leave out "the river purification board" and to insert "he".
The effect of this Amendment would be to place the obligation to publish the information in the Schedule, not upon the river purification board but upon

the Secretary of State for Scotland. After all, it is the Secretary of State who makes the control order, and I suggest it would be right that he should do this administrative work rather than the river purification board.

Mr. G. Campbell: We feel that there is nothing unreasonable in the requirement in the Schedule. The board which has applied for the control order should be responsible for publishing the fact when the order is made. This seems to be perfectly reasonable.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 9, line 1, to leave out paragraph 10.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it will be convenient to take the next Amendment with this Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I should like the Under-Secretary to justify this paragraph. I should have thought that the next Amendment was entirely different, Sir Robert, and not related to this one.

The Deputy-Chairman: If it is not desired to take these two Amendments together, the next Amendment can be taken separately.

Mr. G. Campbell: This Amendment—which can be discussed separately from the next one, if the hon. Gentleman wishes—would remove the limitation of six weeks. This is a common provision in other legislation. Examples are the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947, the Second Schedule to the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, 1961, and the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946. If no such limit is imposed, then a control order, on which the whole licensing system depends, could be open to attack in the Court of Session for an indefinite period, and by that time the whole system might be in full swing. It seems sensible, therefore, that there should be this period in which it is open to bring an action, but, after that, not.

Mr. Ross: I know that it is common form and I have seen it in other statutes. But what really concerned me was the fact that we give 28 days for people to make a local objection, quite apart from a legal objection. Why should we, in relation to something which is very much more serious and which means raising an action in court,


limit the time to only six weeks? After six weeks, any action would be time-barred. Have the Government thought of extending this period, having regard to the period given in the other procedures'' Any action of this kind would raise very complicated legal questions.

Mr. G. Campbell: It is a period recognised and used in similar circumstances in other Acts. Of course, when notice of a control order is given, there will already have been the procedure for consideration of whether the order should be made or not, so that this is adding to the warning which any persons considering taking this action would have. In the circumstances, six weeks does not seem to be too short a time.

Mr. Ross: Objection to a control order is a purely local procedure. Someone far away from the actual area concerned might wish to question the validity of the whole matter, and, from that point of view, I think that there is a case for an extension of the time. I suspect that what happened is that the draftsman merely copied this from other statutes, without relating it to the particular problems arising here. I am not convinced by what the hon. Gentleman has said, bearing in mind the time which is given to the other people concerned.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Consideration what day?

Mr. Michael Hamilton (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Third Reading?

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I believe that I can claim that the Question, "That the Bill as amended, be now considered", be put to the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question is, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Mr. Ross: It is now ten minutes past one. This is a relatively important and complicated Bill. We have spent a considerable time—

Mr. G. Wilson: The verbosity of the Scots.

Mr. Ross: —on the Bill on Friday and again tonight.

Mr. T. Fraser: There has been no filibustering.

Mr. Ross: There has not been any waste of time.
We now proceed straight to the Report stage, with no possibility of considering this discussion or of putting down Amendments. I understand the Under-Secretary to say on Friday that he might well consider accepting one or two Amendments which, for the sake of speed, I did not move. In that case, he might have thought of putting them down on Report. Often, for reasons of speed, Amendments are withdrawn in Committee and are put down again on Report. Now, however, we do not have the opportunity of putting down Amendments. We have no opportunity of seeing Amendments that anyone else has put down. This is a most unfair way of dealing with legislation.
I know that certain hon. Members regard this as a bit of a nuisance and consider it to be rather unimportant, but from a parliamentary point of view it is extremely important. This is not how we should conduct our business. It was for that reason that I claimed the right to be able to say these few words, in order, by asking Mr. Deputy-Speaker to put the Question from the Chair.
I do not expect any reply from the Government—I do not want any reply from them—but the country should know how the Government are prepared to treat Scottish legislation. This is not the first time, but it is the first time that we have been able to voice our protest. The responsibility is not that of the Chair, but of the Government; the Chair quite fairly put the Question. I hope that the Government appreciate that they are not doing justice to the House of Commons.
There was a considerable time between Committee and Report in another place. During that time, Amendments were put down which we thought about and were accepted. We, however, have not been given our proper opportunity, unless it is by manuscript Amendments. I am not prepared to sit down and write manuscript Amendments from Clause 1 to


Clause 9. There is not much likelihood of the Government repeating their performance, because we are in the last 10 days of this Parliament, but the way in which the Bill has been dealt with by the Government is shocking.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. A. Lewis: Surely this is a matter which involves the Chair. While I appreciate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you cannot be held responsible for what the Government have done, you have, do you not, a responsibility, which you always faithfully carry out, to hon. Members, and particularly to back benchers, provided they are in order, to permit them to put down Amendments on Report, which you then call them to move?
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has rightly pointed out that neither he nor any other hon. Member could on this occasion have an opportunity of putting down Amendments for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to study to see whether they are in order to be called. To that extent that must surely deprive you of your rights of deciding whether an Amendment is in order—when we have no opportunity of putting such Amendments. Surely this is a matter you yourself ought to consider, if not on this occasion, for a future occasion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is a matter for the House to decide.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

SCRAP METAL DEALERS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 3.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO RECORDS IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 33, at end insert:
(d) subsection (4) of that section shall be omitted, and any particulars required to be entered in a book by virtue of this subsection shall be so entered as soon as is practicable.

Sir Donald Kaberry: I beg to move, That this House

doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think it unnecessary to go at great length into this Lords Amendment. Its effect is to exempt the application of Clause 2(4) to the dealer who has no store and who is not an exempted itinerant collector, and to require him instead to enter the required particulars in his book as soon as practicable.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 33, after the words last inserted insert:
(6) Where a scrap metal dealer occupies a place as a scrap metal store, but for the time being no order under subsection (1) of this section is in force exempting him from the requirements of the last preceding section, and any scrap metal is, for the purposes of his business as a scrap metal dealer, received otherwise than at a place so occupied by him and is disposed of in the course of that business without its being received at such a place, then—

(a) the obligation imposed by subsection (1) of the last preceding section to enter particulars in a book or books shall extend to the entry, as soon as is practicable, of the like particulars with respect to that scrap metal as would be required by subsections (2) and (3) of the last preceding section if they were modified so that—

(i) any reference therein to the receipt of scrap metal at a place were construed as a reference to the receipt of scrap metal for the purposes of that business; and
(ii) any reference therein to the processing of scrap metal at a place or to the despatch of scrap metal from a place, were construed as a reference to the disposal of scrap metal in the course of that business;
(b) if the dealer occupies more than one place as a scrap metal store, the particulars required by virtue of the preceding paragraph shall be entered in the book or books kept by him under the last preceding section at such of the places so occupied by him as is the nearer, or, as the case may be, the nearest, to the place at which the scrap metal is received for the purposes aforesaid; and
(c) subsection (4) of the last preceding section shall not have effect in relation to the particulars so required."

Sir D. Kaberry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect is to extend the provisions of Clause 2, subject to the modifications set out in the Lords Amendment, to cases where the dealer who has a store receives scrap metal for the purposes of his business otherwise than at the store.


I think the Lords Amendments sets out the purposes for which it is made.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(LICENSING OF RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 7, after "authority" insert "or on or after that date".

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment is to correct a defect in the drafting of Clause 1 and has been approved by the Home Office.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 34, at end insert:
(f) that horses will be maintained in a good state of health and that in the case of a horse kept for the purpose of its being let out on hire for riding or a horse kept for the purpose of its being used in providing instruction in riding, the horse will be suitable for the purpose for which in that case it is kept;".

Sir J. Lucas: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The term "unsuitable" would include horses that bolt.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TRADING STAMPS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(STATEMENTS REQUIRED ON FACE OF TRADING STAMPS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 9, leave out "commencement of this Act" and insert:
coming into force of this section".

Mr. John H. Osborn: I beg to move, That this House

doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment and four others deal with when the Act shall come into operation, whether in six or twelve months' time, which we discussed at an earlier stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 3.—(REDEMPTION OF TRADING STAMPS FOR CASH.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 38, at end insert:
() The holder may exercise his right under the foregoing subsection—

(a) by presenting the stamps at any reasonable time at the promoter's registered office, or
(b) by sending the stamps by post to that office with sufficient instructions as to the manner in which the cash value is to be paid over,
or in any other manner afforded by the promoter.

Mr. Antony Buck: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It is a small Amendment. The purpose is to prevent a promoter from stultifying the effects of Clause 3 by imposing unreasonable conditions as to the time and place at which stamps may be redeemed.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 6, at beginning, insert
Subject to the following subsection

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This amends the provisions of subsec-section (4) to provide for the special case of trading stamps already issued bearing cash value unrelated to any redemption value which it would be unreasonable for the promoter to have to redeem at face value. This was considered in detail in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause A.—(WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED ON REDEMPTION OF TRADING STAMPS FOR GOODS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 12, at end insert new Clause A—
A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, in every redemption of trading stamps for goods there shall be—

(a) an implied warranty on the part of the promoter of the trading stamp scheme that he has a right to give the goods in exchange,
(b) an implied warranty that the person obtaining the goods shall have and enjoy quiet possession of the goods,
(c) an implied warranty that the goods shall be free from any charge or encumbrance in favour of any third party, not declared or known to the person obtaining the goods before or at the time of redemption,
(d) an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality, except that if the person obtaining the goods has examined the goods before or at the time of redemption, there shall be no implied warranty as regards defects which the examination ought to have revealed.
(2) The foregoing subsection shall have effect subject to the terms on which the redemption is made, so far as those terms expressly exclude or modify the warranties implied by that subsection.

Mr. Buck: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This provides for the addition to the Bill of certain warranties which are appropriate parts of the Sale of Goods Act and which shall be implied as a condition of sale when goods are received on the redemption of trading stamps. Only the specific provisions of the Act which are considered particularly appropriate to this sort of transaction have been inserted. The matter was fully considered in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B.—(ADVERTISEMENTS REFERRING TO VALUE OF TRADING STAMPS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 25, at end insert new Clause B—
B.—(1) It shall be unlawful for the promoter of a trading stamp scheme, or for any person carrying on a trade or business in which a trading stamp scheme is operated, after the coming into force of this section to issue or publish, or cause to be issued or published, an advertisement in any medium which conveys, or purports to convey, the cash value of any trading stamps—

(a) by means of a statement which associates the worth of any trading stamps with

what the holder pays or may pay to obtain them, or
(b) in terms which are misleading or deceptive.

(2) A person contravening this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) For the purposes of this section an advertisement issued by way of display or exhibition in a public place shall be treated as issued on every day on which it is so displayed or exhibited, but in proceedings brought by virtue of this subsection in a case where the display or exhibition began before the date of the coming into force of this section, it shall be a defence to show that the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to secure that the display or exhibition was terminated before the date.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This prevents the misdescription of no-cash trading stamps in any kind of advertising. Such an Amendment was urged both in this House and another place and meets the points raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5.—(DISPLAY OF INFORMATION IN SHOPS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 27, after "operated" insert "(a)".

Mr. Buck: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose is to ensure that whenever a trading stamp promoter issues a gift catalogue a copy of the current, up to date edition is available for inspection by customers in retail shops dealing with the scheme. It is designed to carry out the intention of an Amendment moved in this House but which, for drafting reasons, was not appropriate. This Amendment is appropriately drafted and meets the conditions put forward both here and in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 27, after "notice" insert:
stating the cash value of the trading stamps issued under the scheme and

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move, That that House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect is to require that a notice displayed in a shop shall include a statement of the cash value of stamps issued


in that shop. The Amendment meets various points raised in this House at an earlier stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 31, after "posted" insert "in such characters and".

1.30 a.m.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that notices displayed in shops shall be clear and legible. The wording follows that of Section 115(1) of the Factories Act, 1931.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 33, after "If" insert "without reasonable excuse any of".

Mr. Buck: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide retailers with a defence against any proceedings which may be brought against them under the operation of Clause 5. The Bill is designed to regulate stamp schemes as a whole and particularly the operations of the stamp companies, and it is thought appropriate that retailers should not be unduly burdened and should be given a defence if they have not behaved unreasonably.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 8.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, leave out lines 15 to 21 and insert—
(c) in the case where a business is carried on at six or more separate retail establishments, the stamp is one of a kind obtainable at no more than six of those retail establishments, and not obtainable by the public elsewhere and the arrangements under which it is re

deemable are entirely separate from arrangements under which any other stamps, whether trading stamps or not, are redeemable.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a minor alteration of the definition of "trading stamp". It concerns only the position of stamps issued and redeemable through retailers who carry on business in six or more branches. The situation is clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

NEW FOREST (re-committed) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(EXPENSES.)

Sir John Eden: I beg to move, in page 8, line 40, after "Grant", to insert "or Exchequer Equalisation Grant".
This is purely a technical Amendment necessary because the increase in expenditure to which the Bill gives rise could in theory, under an enactment relating to local government in Scotland, be reflected in the Exchequer equalisation grant.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

LONDON CHEST HOSPITAL (MR. JARVIS)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

1.35 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sorry that at this late hour, or should I say early hour, I have to keep the officials and the staff of the House for another half hour, but I want to raise the tragic case of one of my late constituents and his widow.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by thanking you for your kindness in enabling me to have this Adjournment and by paying a tribute to the Press generally, and particularly to my local Press, the Stratford Express and the East Ham Recorder, and to the Sunday Express, who, for no reason other than that they think that an injustice has been done, have given publicity to this case. I also pay tribute to the coroner of West Ham for allowing me to have the post mortem examination report, and to the Minister, both for coming here this morning and for the help that he has given me in correspondence.
This is a really tragic case. I am not here to try to apportion blame, or to point the finger of condemnation at anyone. I want to try to get help and assistance for the widow of the late Mr. Jarvis, and some help and assistance for his children.
My late constituent was a man of 56. and a lithographic artist. He had been in hospital shortly before his death. He was under treatment, and he was known to be a very sick man. He went to the London Chest Hospital for a bronchoscopy examination. This examination is not dangerous in any way—I know because I have had it—and there is nothing difficult about it from a medical point of view, but it does cause a great deal of pain and suffering and it lowers the patient's general resistance.
Mr. Jarvis went to the London Chest Hospital on 6th April. He had a bronchoscopy examination, and he was so overcome that he collapsed. That afternoon his wife was approached by the local police who advised her to get

in touch with the hospital immediately. She did so at 2.30 p.m. She was told that her husband had stopped breathing, that he had been put in an oxygen tent, and that she ought to go to the hospital. By the time she got to the hospital her husband was barely conscious, but she was relieved to find that he was breathing again.
Her husband had not recovered sufficiently to be able to leave the hospital, so he was kept in that night. The following day he was told that he would be discharged, even though the previous day he had been seriously ill and his wife had been told that he had stopped breathing. There is no dispute that he was suffering from severe respiratory trouble.
When the time came for him to leave the hospital he naturally asked for an ambulance to take him home, because he lived quite a way away. One can imagine his surprise, and more so the surprise of his wife, when he was refused any transport whatsoever. His wife naturally tried to get a taxi, but was unable to do so, so she had no alternative but to conduct her husband home by public transport, which meant travelling on two buses and a tube train. Eventually the poor man got home, but, as his wife said, he was so exhausted and ill that he was in a state of collapse and had to go to bed. Unfortunately he never recovered. He died during the night. That was a terrible thing.
After an investigation had taken place the Minister, who has been very kind and helpful, sent me a letter confirming the facts that I have just enumerated, and went on to say that he thought that under the circumstances it would have been better if transport had been provided. That is my point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. He also said—and I agree—that the post mortem pointed out that the man was liable to drop dead at any moment, therefore the bronchoscopy was not the cause of death. I have never argued that, and that is not the argument of the man's wife.
But the hospital authorities cannot have it both ways. If the man was so seriously ill that he had been in hospital for some weeks shortly before going into the London Chest Hospital, and if he suffered from bronchitis and coronary


disease and was liable to drop dead at any moment, one of two things should have happened. When he underwent the examination at the London Chest Hospital and it was found that it affected him adversely so that he almost collapsed—he stopped breathing and had to go into an oxygen tent—the authorities should have seen whether he was fit enough to go out and should have insisted on the provision of transport; he should not have had to ask for it. In fact, they refused transport.
I realise that the post-mortem examination could not have shown whether the strain of travelling all that distance from the hospital to Forest Gate had any contributory effect on the death. All that the pathologist's report says is that he died from bronchitis and coronary disease, and that he was so seriously ill that he was liable to have an attack at any time. I suggest that in this case the widow is entitled to some compensation. I do not want to advise my constituent to go to the worry and trouble of issuing a writ, because I do not think that that would be helpful to her, her children or to the hospital authorities. However, since the Minister has admitted to me—in correspondence and a Parliamentary Answer—that it would have been better had transport been provided for Mr. Jarvis, I suggest that, leaving aside any legal question, from the moral point of view something should be done because this shows that there was some neglect or negligence on the part of the hospital authorities.
I am convinced that had this man been given transport home he would not have been so exhausted and would have been able to arrive home and, having gone to bed, in all probability might have recovered from the bronchoscopy. I hasten to point out yet again that I agree that the bronchoscopy was not responsible for his death. I have had one myself and I agree that, from the medical point of view, it does not cause any damage. Nevertheless, a man suffering from congestion of the lungs goes through a tremendous ordeal when having a bronchoscopy, for it necessitates tubes being stuck up the nose and the patient having to suck a certain amount of coloured fluid through those tubes into the lungs. That is by no means a pleasant experience, particularly for a man who is already suffering from

congestion and similar difficulties. It is exhausting and unpleasant for even the fittest of people.
Since the hospital authorities knew that Mr. Jarvis had undergone that treatment and that he had been in hospital just previously, apart from the fact that he had been placed in an oxygen tent and had had to spend the night in hospital, he should have been provided with transport home, particularly since it was known that he was liable to drop down dead at any moment. I am not commenting on the medical side of this case. On humanitarian grounds, I am suggesting that there is hardly a person who would not in similar circumstances have said, "Let me help you home." The average person would ask a friend or acquaintance if they are able to provide assistance in reaching a bus, train, or even going as far as taking the person all the way home. I suggest, therefore, that a callous indifference was displayed in this case.
Whatever is the final outcome in this case, I hope that the Minister will set a thorough inquiry on foot to ensure that these things do not happen in future. Any person in Mr. Jarvis's position should in future be provided with ambulance or other transport home. I have previously asked whether ambulances were available at the time, but that question has not been answered. Was there any question of a shortage of ambulances? Whatever the reason, I hope that the Minister will say that he agrees that in this instance the hospital authorities should make an ex gratia payment, which would not involve any question of responsibility or liability; merely that instead of the sympathy which has been expressed in correspondence and verbally, something tangible should be done.

1.49 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I know that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) has raised this matter with the very best of motives, and I have therefore listened to him with the closest of attention. When I first heard from him on the subject my reaction was that here was a matter that should be looked into most carefully, and I called for an urgent report.
May I say at the very outset, and before answering the hon. Gentleman, that I have the deepest sympathy for Mrs. Jarvis in her bereavement, and can fully understand her feelings about the circumstances in which it occurred. It is sad enough to lose one's husband; it is a terrible thing for a wife to feel that perhaps her husband's death might have been avoided.
The hon. Gentleman tabled a number of Questions following Mr. Jarvis' death, and the Answers I have given him, which have appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT, set out the main facts of the case. Unhappily, Mr. Jarvis, who was 56 years of age, was not a man of robust physique. He was suffering with his heart and chest, and had a nervous condition of some long standing. It might be helpful if I were to set out the details of the events preceding his death so that the record should be clear.
It was in January that a doctor at Plaistow Hospital referred him with a general medical report to the London Chest Hospital for a bronchoscopy—that is, a diagnostic examination of the lungs. On 6th April, Mr. Jarvis attended the London Chest Hospital again for a further bronchoscopy. He had been extensively investigated at Plaistow Hospital and the doctors at the London Chest Hospital had no reason to believe that a bronchoscopy could not be carried out in the normal manner. I might mention that this kind of examination is carried out frequently at the hospital; indeed, it is carried out on as many as 25 patients a week as a matter of routine.
The examination on Mr. Jarvis was carried out under a general anaesthetic. It revealed no abnormality but, following the examination, as the hon. Member has correctly described, Mr. Jarvis had difficulty with his breathing, so that it was necessary to give him assisted respiration for about three hours and it was decided to keep him in hospital overnight. Usually, patients are sent home on the same day when they are sufficiently recovered from the anaesthetic. Mrs. Jarvis, because of the difficulty I have mentioned, was very properly

sent for, and when she arrived her husband was conscious.
At 1.30 p.m. the following day Mr. Jarvis was examined by two doctors in the hospital, who decided that he was fit for discharge. I am advised that he was able to walk about, and the doctors did not think it necessary to order an ambulance to take him home. Mrs. Jarvis, who had come to meet her husband, tried to obtain a taxi, as the hon. Gentleman said, but was unable to do so. She asked a nurse if an ambulance could be provided. Since the nurse knew that the doctors had not recommended ambulance transport, and as ambulances are not normally provided for walking patients, she did not arrange for one to be provided. So Mr. and Mrs. Jarvis went home by bus and train.
On the following morning, Mrs. Jarvis found that her husband had died. The doctor who was called in was uncertain of the cause of death, the coroner was notified, and he arranged for a post mortem to be undertaken. The coroner noted from the pathologist's report—I believe that the hon. Member has received a copy, that—
… there was ample natural disease"—
that was the term used:
present to account for death.
He decided that there was no reason to hold an inquest.
The pathologist's report stated that the autopsy did not disclose any evidence of a miscarriage of the procedure of bronchoscopy, and I am advised that it showed that Mr. Jarvis was suffering from a heart condition from which he might have died at any time. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have no evidence that Mr. Jarvis' death was hastened by his hospital treatment or by his journey home. The hon. Member will appreciate that I am not a medical man and I was bound to ask for medical advice on this point. I can assure him that I have no evidence that either the hospital treatment or Mr. Jarvis' difficult journey home hastened his death.
Having received these reports, my own feelings were that in all the circumstances it would have been better if transport had been provided. I expressed that view to the hon. Member, and I still hold to it. Of course, I was looking at this


entirely as a layman and admittedly with all the advantages of hindsight, but decisions of this kind can only be taken by doctors, having regard to their knowledge of the patient's medical condition at the time and the nature of the journey he has to make.
At this point I ought to say something about the instructions for the use of ambulances. They state clearly that ambulances should be provided on the recommendation of a doctor. We must remember that ambulances are frequently required to meet emergency situations. In view of this it is most important that the use of the ambulance service is properly regulated. We have a clear duty to ensure that the service is always adequate to provide for those uses where the doctors are satisfied that an ambulance is needed.
As the House will recognise, this is a matter of balancing an assessment of the patient's condition against the difficulties of the journey he has to make. This is a decision which the doctors have to make in the light of the circumstances of each ease as they see them. In Mr. Jarvis's case they decided that it was not necessary to provide transport. This was essentially a matter for medical judgment. Thus the proper procedure for the ordering of ambulances was followed at the hospital in that the decision was taken by the proper person. There was no question of an ambulance not being available had the doctor recommended one. The hospital does not experience difficulty in obtaining ambulances on request from the London Ambulance Service.
The hon. Member has claimed that the proper course would be to pay compensation to the widow, but I think that we must be clear in our minds as to what is meant by payment of compensation. In a letter dated 10th July, in which the hon. Member was kind enough to tell me what he had in mind, he said that
I will claim that either the doctors knew that Mr. Jarvis was so seriously ill that they ought to have provided transport, or they did not know, which shows that they could not have given him the thorough medical examination which his condition warranted.
In a further letter dated 14th July, the hon. Member told me that his purpose was not to try to blame either the doctors or the hospital administrative staff but only to ascertain whether in this case an

ex gratia payment could be made without admission of liability.
I believe that the hon. Member and I have exactly the same objective, namely that if Mrs. Jarvis has a just claim it should be met. But what is the claim? And if there is a sound claim, against whom should it be pursued? These are the vital questions with which we are concerned. I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I say that there has been some ambiguity in his approach. The impression which I get from his letters and from what he has said tonight is that he contends, on the one hand, that there has been negligence while, on the other hand, he does not seek to lay specific blame on either the hospital doctors or the hospital administrative staff.
If it is alleged that there was negligence, if it is claimed that this unfortunate man should not have been sent home by public transport and that this experience in some way hastened his death, that, in short, there is justification for some legal claim, the action does not lie against my right hon. Friend but against the board of governors of the hospital or against some member or members of the hospital staff. I should explain to the House that proceedings against a hospital board in respect of anything done in carrying out its functions under the National Health Service Act are required to be brought against the board in its own name.
The hon. Member has put his plea for compensation—I accept that he has done so with the best of motives—directly to my right hon. Friend. From what I have just said, I am sure he will appreciate that to pursue this course is to ignore the question of any claim against the board of governors or its staff. As I have pointed out, if there were any basis for legal proceedings, they would lie against the board or some of its members or members of its staff, who would then have the opportunity of being represented.
It might well be asked in such a case whether it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to offer an ex gratia payment. I ought to remind the House in this connection that the very purpose of ex gratia payments is to meet the situation where clear moral entitlement


has been established but where there is no satisfactory remedy in law. I am bound to say that that situation does not arise in this case.
Having said that, I can well understand how any hon. Member approaching a sad problem of this kind might have done so in the way that the hon. Member has done tonight. All of us will recognise that he is concerned to do whatever is best for his constituent and her children. It seems clear, however, that the course which he wishes my right hon. Friend to adopt is not the right one. If it is still seriously alleged that the hospital authority or its staff were responsible for Mr. Jarvis's unfortunate death, the law provides the means by which these allegations can be tested.

Mr. Lewis: The point which I put to the hon. Gentleman was that I did not want to have the woman troubled again with the sadness of having the case all over again if there was a way in which she could be compensated by an ex gratia payment. I reiterate that I have not said that I can prove that there was negligence; neither can I prove the contrary. All I say is that in my opinion, as a non-medical person, there must have been some contributory cause in sending the man home in the way he was sent, knowing that he was such a sick man. From what the Minister now tells me, it appears that the only way to resolve the matter is for the widow to apply for legal aid and to take the matter through the court. There appears to be no other way in which the Minister can help.

Mr. Braine: It seems to me that that is the only course which can be pursued. It does not fall to me to give advice to the hon. Member's constituent, but I feel that in all the circumstances which I have described, it would be wise for her to seek legal advice.

Mr. Lewis: I am glad that the Minister has finished his reply a little early to enable me to say this. I appreciate the

position. I am not asking for a reply now, but will the Minister consider, before the House rises for the Recess, whether he could have a word with the hospital governors or the regional board, whichever is the appropriate authority, to see whether that body in turn would consider this suggestion.
I think that as the responsible Minister the hon. Gentleman has power to draw to the attention of the authority concerned for the hospital both his communication in writing to me and the debate which has taken place tonight. It is, I think, within the Minister's prerogative to point out to the authority concerned that it might consider this. I do not ask the Minister to recommend one way or the other, because I would still prefer the board, if it could see its way clear to do so, to come to a settlement rather than have this poor woman go through this tragedy all over again, going to court, first getting the legal aid certificate, undergoing the means test basis of application, getting solicitors' advice and probably have the whole thing dragging on for months. The courts are about to rise for the vacation and probably the case would have to wait until the autumn. All this would be quite tragic on top of the tragedy which this woman has already had. If the hospital authorities could say that they have a means whereby they could help this lady and come to some token arrangement, or if they could consider that, it would be better for all concerned. If not, I agree with the Minister that I should have to suggest to her that she should take legal advice. Could the hon. Gentleman consider that?

Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman has now set out his views on this subject at considerable length. I have no doubt that the matter will be closely studied by the board of governors of the hospital concerned. I think we must leave the matter there tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Two o'clock.